Atheism versus Theism

Alright, I want a good, clean fight.  Simply state your side, your argument/counter-argument/comment and whatnot.  I'm not trying to troll this, just wanting a good debate, so let's have one. (Atheist by the way)

There's no evidence for the existence of God.
</thread>

it seems unlikely that something can come from nothing, which is where god comes in i suppose.  but either way, god has a lot of questions to answer himself when it comes to his own creation. 

anyway, these questions arent for humanity to ponder for a long time, unless maybe youre a genius.  otherwise the average intellect is just far too low to comprehend even the enormity of the universe, let alone god. 

If you posit God as the "first cause", you're just begging the question. If you have no problem accepting God doesn't need a cause of his own, why do you have a problem believing the universe does?

>>3
anyway, these questions arent for humanity to ponder for a long time, unless maybe youre a genius.  otherwise the average intellect is just far too low to comprehend even the enormity of the universe, let alone god.
Discouraging inquiry is a good way to perpetuate ignorance. This sort of reasoning explains why religion is still so popular in some parts.

principle of parsimony, why make up a god to begin with?

>>3
ill poin out that god has to come from nothing otherewise it dosent exist("it" because god isnt defined as an existence)

god is a god of nothing thats why its a god of evrything

>>2
(a) There's evidence for the existence of a being that we refer to as "God", but nothing aboslutely conclusive.  Just really, really strong

(b) There's no definitive argument or evidence against his existence, either.

(a) There's evidence for the existence of a being that we refer to as "God", but nothing aboslutely conclusive.  Just really, really strong
Show it or GTFO.

(b) There's no definitive argument or evidence against his existence, either.
Burden of proof, nigger. There's no definitive argument or evidence against the existence of unicorns either.

>>8
Niggers have no burden of proof or any burden at all. Your argument thus falls. As to whom the burden of proof falls on, it's really determined by the masses, so gtfo with this argument.

Atheistfags and theistfags gtfo please.

>>10
Eat niggercocks in hell, heretic.

It's impossible to debate with people who accept conclusions or premises without evidence ... and these are cases when there SHOULD be a LOT of evidence, but there is NONE instead.

That's why we call them "religitards".

As a non-religious person I will be happy to accept that believes in a god on empirical grounds. Abrahamic religions are all just based on ancient Hebrew mythology; monsters, magicians, god created mankind out of dirt, just examples that you will also find in any kind of ancient mythology.

God is a hypothesis I have no use for...

>>7 here.

>>8
(a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

And from that page:

http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

Eat that, cocksucker.

(b) >>2 shouldn't have tried to end the thread, given that he (you?) isn't necessarily right.  I didn't say I was right.  I just said you may not be.  Also, for the record, this particular anon is white.  Not nigger.

Does it matter? I mean, really? People will believe what gets them through the day until they die or we evolve into a collective psychic hivemind.

I am agnostic because:

There's no evidence God exists;
There's no evidence God can't or doesn't exist.

The "burden of proof" has no place here, each argument needs to be proven. Atheists are unable to prove this second point.

Until humans solve things like the "first cause" problem in the creation of the universe, then there's always the possibility of a creator. However there's no reason at all to think God would exist as described in any religious text.

Bertrand Russel on The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.
 

>>15
Oh look, it's the four-year-old's argument for the existence of God dressed up in fancy notation.
Show me a piland and we can talk.

>>17
The "burden of proof" has no place here, each argument needs to be proven. Atheists are unable to prove this second point.
Wow, are you really that confused?

Look, if you replace "God" with "leprechauns" or "unicorns", you have the exact same argument. Would you call yourself agnostic with regards to them as well? Would you say the burden of proof falls on people who don't believe in leprechauns or unicorns as well as those who do?

Until humans solve things like the "first cause" problem in the creation of the universe
There is no first cause problem. It's been addressed in this very thread already, even before >>18 quoted Russel.

then there's always the possibility of a creator.
There's always the possibility the world was created last Thursday and we were created with it, with all our memories and whatnot preformed.
The fact that it's strictly possible doesn't mean it even deserves mention. The existence of God is in the same category as last-Thursdayism.

>>19
>>15 here.  What the fuck are you talking about?  "four-year-old's argument"?  The Wikipedia I linked to was a proof by Goedel.  If you're old enough to be on 4chan, you'd know that he's one of the more famous mathematicians.  This means that he's got a massive amount of credibility, especially when it comes to mathematical proofs.  I'd take his word for it if I were you.

>>20
Unlike you, some of us actually understand his argument, and realise it's based on shitty premises, just the same as Anselm's original. The logic is solid, but that's irrelevant because his base assumptions are crap.

Appeal to authority is worthless. His argument stands or falls on its own merits, and in this case, it falls.

God exists, Satan and his demons (some less religious people have called these "reptilians") control secret societies like the free masons and the Illuminati which in turn control the world in the devils attempt to drag as many souls down to hell with him as he can before his time is up.

There, you have been enlightened.

>>22
At face value, this is less far-fetched than the virgin birth.

There is no possibility of a "creator" as ALL the religitard stories detail.  Why?  Because THAT particular creator was very, VERY nosy in Human affairs, and we've simply no evidence for it.  NO.  EVIDENCE.

When something should be producing a LOT of evidence, and there's just NOTHING, you have to be a sane person and admit your thesis was WRONG.

Now, the Deists may be correct, but since their version of a "creator" is detached in space and time, it's therefore IRRELEVANT.

Ooh, I just PWNT the religitards MANY TIMES.  Since each religitard has the intelligence of a piece of lawn furniture, I suppose that that's not much of an accomplishment, eh?

I agree with >>21, for the curious, St-Anselm's argument is that "if we can think of a God then he must exist"

it's an insane conclusion backed up by insane premises
the whole process is flawed. Anselm doesn't look for evidence, he defines The Rules of Magic and works from there. fail.

>>19
Your unicorn and last Thurday examples I'm almost completely convinced are totally false, but strictly speaking there's a miniscule possibility they could be true. There's not a large enough element of doubt to say I'm agnostic on their existance though. There is a larger element of doubt about the lack of God's existance though. I'd say I'm agnostic with a strong inclination towards atheism. I believe the terms overlap, depending on how strong your convictions are. Russel also described himself both as agnostic and atheist.

Since you yourself admit in a roundabout way a God is strictly possible, you don't fall into the category of atheists I reject; those who say they are absolutely 100% certain God does not and cannot exist.

>>26
In that case, the atheists you reject are straw men, because they just don't exist (a handful of retarded 14-year-olds not considered; they're a tiny, tiny minority, even on the internets).
I would argue that the only reason you think the existence of God is more plausible than that of unicorns is because you grew up in a society that keeps repeating that, not because you have carefully considered the facts. I'd say unicorns are more likely to exist than any conventional god.

Agnostic and atheist are orthogonal terms, BTW. I, like pretty much everyone who's thought about this, am an agnostic atheist. Most religious people, I would venture, are gnostic theists. The rare actually religious scientist is probably more likely to be an agnostic theist.
That's one reason people who answer "agnostic" when asked about their religious beliefs annoy me. "Agnostic" isn't an answer to a question about religious beliefs, it's about epistemology. The atheist/theist scale is about religious beliefs.

>>27
Good points. The confusion is that how you defined these terms is not what everyone understands them to mean.

I don't believe in the bible or really organized religion in general.

But no mortal can really ever no for sure whether there is a god or isn't.  An atheist can argue all he wants about no evidence or proof, but looking at scientifically, you can't prove the opposite theory wrong either.

In end, theres only one real way to find out.  And anyone who says they know 100% either way is fooling themselves.

>>28
There's a lot of general confusion surrounding the term "agnostic", and there has been from the very beginning. I think the clarification put forth in >>27 makes more sense than putting agnostic as somewhere between theist and atheist on a single scale, and an increasing number of people seem to agree.
Still, it'll be a while before anyone can mention the word in a discussion without also explaining what he means by it, for either definition.

>29
But no mortal can really ever no for sure whether there is a god or isn't.  An atheist can argue all he wants about no evidence or proof, but looking at scientifically, you can't prove the opposite theory wrong either.
BURDEN OF PROOF, NIGGER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Jesus fucking Christ, it's not that hard. Read a fucking thread past the first post before you post in it.

>>29
here we go 30 replies and back to square one

jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfPhqFat0U

Anyone daft enough to insist that there MUST be a purpose to life, anyone that believes that they can fathom the depths of reality to such an extent as to truly understand why it exists in the first place is just a little bit of an egomaniac.

That said, life on Earth appears to be a chemical reaction in the same sense as fire is, however it is, obviously, quite a bit more complex. The same idea, however. I don't see purpose, I just see unrestrained growth.

I'm not claiming to ~know~ that there aren't higher lifeforms out there, but I see no reason to believe in any specific one at this time.

I am tired of such phrases as "Well, space HAS to have been made by someone, right?" This phrase is suggesting that the speaker has some insider information on the nature of the universe that the rest of us don't, doesn't it? As some animals merely a few steps ahead of chimpanzees, barely able to refrain from killing each other off, can suddenly claim to understand the mechanics behind the universe. It is vanity, it is ignorance and I demand it to stop immediately. I've had it up to HERE with these chimps!

How come Jeesus rhymes with peenus?

There is on difference between atheism and theism. The idea of God is not well-defined - it could have multiple definitions. However, the idea of God is to take on any idea, then it could be anything. Simply put, if God is to be omnipotent, or at least "almighty," then anything could be caused by God at all. Suppose a rock falls. It could have been caused by God. Or it may not have. There is no difference. Suppose some matter levitates or appears and assembles in a formation of a structure of an animal (which, of course, probably never happened). Perhaps God has done that. Or perhaps it naturally happened. There is no difference between the two.

>>35
I meant that "there is no difference" when I said "there is on difference."

>>35
You're more of a fucking retard than the christfags themselves. Take your post-modernist bullshit and choke on it.

>>37
I don't postmodernist, but I think that this "bullshit" is correct, whether it is "bullshit" or not. It is either right or wrong, and you seem to accept the validity of my claims.

>>38
Failtroll is fail.

What's this thread about again?

>>39
Its about atheism versus theism. And by the say, you know you agree with me on my post 35.

Atheism is not believing in (a) theism. it's not rejecting, or trying to disprove any theisms out there it simply just doesn't believe in what a theism believes in. It's a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't have any burden of proof because they don't claim anything. If no one had come up with and idea of a deity we would all be atheistic by default, just as if no one had introduced the concept of deception we would all only be capable of telling the truth. Atheism only arises as an option because theism exists.

Theism is believing in a higher power, be it God, Gods, or nature as a whole as a sentient being (Gaia), that can affect the lives of creatures (humans), inanimate objects (the stars), and environmental occurrences (the weather). Theism makes many claims of how the world works according to either a general set of rules set by said deities or by the will of said deities and is therefore subject to the burden of proof (extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof). Theism generally addresses much criticism of these claims by either citing the will of the deity and purposeful drastic changes of any previous rules (miracles that defy the laws of physics) or by citing observation in a book of theistic dogma written as historical accounts (The Bible). The major claim of a deity itself in any theism is addressed through either citing previous claims and their subsequent evidence (many chalked up to miracles) or faith. the first method being prone to the fallacy of circular logic (God (exists because)> described in theistic scripture (inspired by)> God) the second is based off the method of believing in that which has no evidence as truth.

am i close?

>>41
No, you're just shifting the burden of proof on the theists. Protip: You both have to prove your theory to agnostics.

How to get free stuff from the internet, like Amazon gift certificates and shit:

Step 1: Install Firefox autoreloader: http://tinyurl.com/32wqmn

Step 2: Go to this site: http://tinyurl.com/ynkurk
and sign up. Make sure to uncheck the box that lets them send you email offers and garbage.

Step 3: Go to the search page at that site and input any search. (internet hate machine, etc.)

Step 4: Set Firefox to autoreload the page every 5 seconds.

Step 5: ?????

Step 6: Profit! I won a $5 gift certificate in the first 15 minutes. It might take longer, but if you just set it up and leave it every day, you get tons of free shit. (Make sure to check your "My Prizes" page periodically)

>>42
Bullshit. Any "agnostic" who believes that is soft in the head. See also: unicorn analogy.

The problem is that millenia of religious indoctrination have normalised theist claims to such an extent that most people don't stop to realise just how outrageous they really are. These self-described agnostics are ascribing religious claims a credibility they just don't have.

>>44
I'm an agnostic because, though I have found no compelling evidence for belief in any kind of supernatural, divine being, I believe it to be an open question whether or not some form of great intelligence created the universe or initiated the Big Bang, or whether it occurred without influence. A question that science has not yet answered, and a question (I am open to this possibility) it may never provide a satisfactory answer for.

I know I am vulnerable to the "teapot in orbit round the sun" attack, but I maintain that it is an open question in my mind, since the question and the potential answer is so fundamental. Whether this technically makes me an atheist or an agnostic I don't care, but I call myself agnostic to separate myself from atheists who are determined that NO such being could POSSIBLY have created the universe.

>>45
So basically you're a credulous dipshit who doesn't know how to examine evidence and think critically, same as any christfag. GTFO.

   religin relies on faith not any shred of reality

   you cant prove god with mathamatics or any logic unless you take a series of asumptions about god that may or may not exist

   the human race was mostlikley not made by any higher being unless we were an experiment that went horibly wrong(or there not finished with us/got bored)

   god was made by a figment of some retards imagination who is not able to grasp the fact that they will die and thats it.

   the argument that says "god can exist cause theres no proof that it dosent" works as well as me saying "i am god... prove me wrong"(if you can acualy completly and perfectly prove that i am not god then stfu cause your probaby on drugs)

>>45

>>41 here

i think the biggest mistake you make is that you think that atheists somehow actively deny the existence of a deity, when in fact they simply do not believe in the notion. It's not that god CAN'T exist, it's that one doesn't. It's almost an assumption, instead of a direct claim. Atheists assume there's no god because there's nothing that would show there is one, not that there CAN'T be a god. Imagine a time before the notion of god. if you went up to anyone, and asked them if they believe in god, they'd give you a puzzled look and ask "what is a god?". it's somewhat the same thing now, but because we live in a world where you'd never get that response because god is such a prevalent notion, the answer has become "no, i don't." But the idea is the same. if you asked that man long ago "why don't you believe in god?" after explaining the notion of a deity to him, he would end up asking "what reason would i have TO believe in one?". With this there's no logical reason why that man would have any burden of proof on him because he doesn't claim anything. The ONLY reason theists think atheists have any sort of burden of proof is because we live in a time where the notion of god is everywhere, so to say there isn't one is suddenly a claim. Just as if you lived in a world where the notion of the Great Green Arkleseizure made the universe, saying you don't believe in it is then also suddenly a claim, while on any other world the notion would have never come up. So, even though the environment in which the question is asked is different than that man long ago, the burden of proof still lies on the person making the claim about a deity.

>>45 here


>>46
I've examined the evidence, and determined that there is no reason to believe an intelligent initial creator exists, and no reason to specifically believe one didn't. Hence, I leave it as an open question.

>>48
But there probably are some atheists who believe God can't possibly exist, and it's those ones that I'd want to distance myself from. I understand perfectly that the onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, and that belief in some initial creator is about as indeterminate as believing that a piece of turd exists in the middle of a galaxy millions of light-years away. But my point is this: I don't think we should dismiss the fundamental question of whether an initial stimulus was provided to the universe or not, rather, it is something we should be having open in our minds and striving towards solving.

Take an example, let's say a mathematician is working on solving a problem, a potential solution of which may have drastic implications on the whole of science. The mathematician does not see that there is no evidence of a solution existing (which, let's say, there isn't) and simply assume there isn't and forget about it. His first and foremost task is to try and find that solution, or at least prove that one exists.

>>49
Faulty analogy as math actually exists.

Going over the 3 positions about the existence of gods...

Given that most religions are mutually exclusive, I don't see how one can be a theist.

The fact one has to pick a religion that most likely rejects all others is a huge hurdle in my eyes. You ask people how they did it and it's their childhood or "they found Jesus" etc. Maybe it was Allah they found?

The second problem is how all religions give the same testament to the power of their gods (books, miracles, heroes). How is one to choose?

I do not believe deism is a better position, there is no need for deities that exist outside of the universe, except for Man's head to feel better. I'll expand on that if needed to.

So I am left with atheism, the "reactive" position as >>48 describes. But really mostly, outside of debates I don't give a damn about deities, therefore "I am not an atheist, I just don't believe in gods". This is a non-sense but the meaning of the word has slipped to mean "anti-religious" rather than "atheist".  They ought to come up with a new word.

>>49

the question isn't whether or not the universe is a result of an initial stimulus, because it most likely was (the big bag), the question is whether or not that initial stimulus was a sentient omnipotent being (god).

in response to your example, first, look at the second sentence again because you used a double negative and i'm not sure if you ended up where you wanted to be. second, the analogy doesn't really work because with math you work with concrete finite numbers, for the most part, than can be critiqued and shown as a proof and so on. the biggest problem with god is that it's the biggest open ended thing to work with, EVER. any logic or method you try to put to it can easily be slapped down using an excuse like miracles or the idea that god doesn't need to follow his own rules of the universe. you might as well say there's an immortal time traveling magician that goes around doing stuff to the universe that shouldn't happen. if you try to prove he doesn't exist because the things he does doesn't fit the laws of observable nature, then you chalk it up to his magic wand and leave it at that. it becomes a childish game of "well, god can't exist because of /this/. we've tested it and everything and it comes out wrong, so god can't possibly work if this is wrong." to which the response is "yeah, well, it's god we're talking about. he can do ANYTHING. so try try again. neener neener neener". How can you even begin to prove god DOESN'T exist when you're dealing with a being that can be anywhere, knows everything, and has the capability of making 2+2=fish?

>>51
"They ought to come up with a new word."

better yet, people need to stop thinking of 'atheist' as 'anti-religious'. no need to find a new word to appease the people who misunderstand it.>>49

>>52
Sorry, yes the pseudo double negative is confusing. Rephrasing the sentence;

"The mathematician sees that there is no evidence of any solution existing, but does not simply assume there are none and forget about it."

As for the "god" thing... to be fair, I'm hardly even talking about god. Certainly not the god of any religion. I'm not talking about a god that can excuse things using miracles, or can defy any law at will, thus rendering science inept. I'm talking about whether or not the initial stimulus to the universe was a sentient being. The Big Bang in itself is not a satisfactory answer, and I'm not satisfied in blindly believing that science will provide an ultimate answer at some point. It is an open question in my head. The universe may or may not have been stimulated by a sentient being. It is simply arrogance and speculation to state that you are certain that it wasn't, given the (lack of) evidence available.


In fact, there is a philosophical idea that we may be significantly more likely to exist in a virtual universe (that is, one created by outside sentient beings) than in a "real" one. This would come from the speculation that if a civilisation reaches a certain peak in technical capabilities, it may desire and implement the creation of a virtual universe, in which the exact same thing happens, and so on. This might be limited by the quantization of fundamental forces/particles, I'm not entirely sure. But if it is possible, that outside sentience is pretty much omnipotent, and fits a lot of the criteria for being a "god" to this universe.

>>53
well if we're talking about origin theories, namely the big bang vs. a sentient stimulus, then the discussion becomes which is more plausible given available evidence: a theory with tons of observable and testable evidence already in our possession or one for which there is no evidence or method of testing?

"It is simply arrogance and speculation to state that you are certain that it wasn't, given the (lack of) evidence available."

I'm not so sure it's arrogance that we reject that which has no evidence, or else we'd have to give consideration to ANYTHING that came across our plate. At some point you have to realize that yes almost anything can be possible, but unless it's backed up by actual testable, repeatable evidence, you're going to have to put it waaay back on the back burner until your theory overpowers what we already have. Current theories of intelligent design are miles away from being taken seriously, and usually end up warping current science to make it seem like they have a valid point to make.

and as for your example of a cycle of virtual realities building virtual realities, you still come across the problem of, going back far enough, what was the initial stimulus?

Faith requires belief. Belief that all the experience in your life and everything your life is about is true.  I'm not calling your traditions false, but I've met many Christians who don't forgive like the Lord tells you to.  So many who -don't- turn the other cheek, and instead look for an eye for an eye.  The anointed one said "Judge not, lest ye be judged". How is that wrong today? Science isn't a tool for discovering God.  It's not supposed to prove or disprove God.  What you should be wondering is:  why are you being ordered to hate learning?

IT'S OK GUYS, I FOUND GOD, HE WAS BEHIND THE COUCH.

>>54

I told you, the Big Bang isn't a satisfactory solution on its own, since it doesn't say -how- it actually occurred, only what happened during it. I'm perfectly happy with the theory being the most plausible, given the evidence (H/He proportions etc..). I'm talking about whether a sentient being caused it to occur or not. The problem at this point being, we're not certain if anything testable is even possible. MY problem at this point being, atheists will not even consider the possibility that it was a sentient being at all. In my mind, it is as possible a solution as any mathematical construct like branes you can concoct (untestably, and currently without evidence) to sort-of explain why the Big Bang might have occurred. People have high-profile, well-paid jobs researching into these (untestable, no evidence) solutions, but no one has ever considered generating testable predictions based on it being a sentient stimulus.

MY problem at this point being, atheists will not even consider the possibility that it was a sentient being at all.
MY problem is that you won't consider that it was a rabbit.
Seriously, you're a closed-minded bigot.

I supposer I'll finally pipe into my thread. (Still Atheist)

1. Adding the suffix -fag or -tard does nothing for you. It neither makes you right, nor makes you look intelligent. You simply look like a kid who just figured out the meaning of the word fag.

2. The only real way to resolve this argument is to go back to our old friend, Occam's Razor.  If there is no proof for something, or it relies on circular argument for its proof, then it may not be disproved. Both arguments do this on occasion, but Theism does this on more occasions than Atheism.  In this case, you must simply go to the razor, and say that, seeing as Theism assumes more, it must know less, else it would have no need to assume.

3. When I say Theism, by no means do I mean Christianity.  I mean anything from Judaism to Paganism to old Norse mythology.

4. Insults such as: fucking retard, nigger, or fuck head are not valid insults by any means.

5. Anyone who uses a holy book as proof of the existence of gods, or the existence of gods as proof of a holy book...you surely have some disorder, and I would suggest you see a local doctor as soon as possible.

>>59
-tard is an accurate suffix when dealing with theists, IMO. They really are mentally retarded, in the sense that they're stuck in an infantile mindset.

>>60
This may be so, but seeing as if one is intelligent enough to recognize they are retarded, they are most likely not retarded, it serves no purpose to point this out to them.  You may simply hold your wisdom, saving it until the perfect time, at which point you shall zerg them with a wave of truthiness.  This, then, will bring a small golden age to all within 100 miles, allowing science, mathematics, and philosophy to flourish, triggering more waves of truthiness; a chain reaction which will wipe away all Theism in one lovely, merciful genocide.

i labled god/religis belifs unimportant in my head
(i neither agree or disagree withi them i just do not care about them)
so i cant really se why you are areguing about a thing that is irrelevent(no you are not proving which side is right you just end up lookin idiotic)
even if you win what will you achive anyways?
(corection: what will it achive for me? i dont care about you)

Wut A GODS?  U maek noSPENCE!

so i cant really se why you are areguing about a thing that is irrelevent
It would be irrelevant if it didn't oppress billions of people. Religion actively holds back human civilisation and causes more individual unhappiness than any other thing in the world.
This is why this sort of discussion is important (or would be, if it wasn't just one agnostic wanking about atheists and atheists replying to him, instead of actual religitards laying their arguments for the existence of god on the table).

Anyway, piss off, the grown-ups are talking.

And yet the religitards have delivered up ZERO evidence for this deity-thing-whatever.  MAJORLY EPIC FAIL.  There are NO pink invisible weightless flying dragons tiptoeing through your yard!  All those who say pink invisible weightless flying dragons exist have to SUBMIT EVIDENCE FOR THEM!

six times nine = 42

>>66
Correct, because it says so in a book (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

>>67
Correct, they did it on Mythbusters.

WUT a GODS?

Seriously, what is a god?

>>66

Base 13?

>>71

Yeah, I'd worked that out ages ago, but whenever I try to explain it to someone they either have no mathematical knowledge and can't understand, or have some mathematical knowledge and don't even care.

Jessus is chrsitian but i bet he had sex tho. bibel is like wrong cuz sum fuckin old guys made it up to saey sex is wtong.... so realy sex is cool its just those fuckin old guys who didntget any pusy telin us wat we can and cant' do!!!

 lol fuckin jewse talkin shit aboutu Jessus all the time.

God shoots up heroin everyday.  He's lost all control of himself.  He needs our help!  He needs...  an intervention.

I ask you this, why is it that all cultures around the world concieved a God or Spirits?

>>75
"God or spirits", as if the majority of the various religions people have come up with over the millenia aren't mutually exclusive?
The development of religion is pretty well understood and quite uncontroversial, and it doesn't have anything to do with actual existence of the supernatural. Read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, if you want a detailed explanation.

Hello again....going to just post periodically until this dies out. (Atheist still)

>>73
I'm really hoping you either have some learning deficiency, are five years old, or have a typing problem....there's no other excuse.
 >>75
Religion is what happens when science fails.  Back in the time of the Mayans and such, for instance, they didn't have the technology to determine what caused things such as: day and night, disease, differing harvests, or natural disasters.  In this manner, they simple credited it to some unknown spirit, and so made sacrifices to appease these gods.  This has happened in many cultures.  Native Americans thought, for instance, that Earth was on a turtle's back being carried around a light source because they hadn't the technology to determine what was actually happening.  So, in short, religion is the 'easy way out'. "I don't get this, so it must be divine." As science advances, less and less ritual is put into religion, as more is explained.  In America, a relatively small amount of ritual is placed into religion.  By contrast, in India, there is more ritual because less is known to the populace about the actual happenings. And, as 76 said above, me, the development of religion is quite understood, haven't several known causes, including but not limited to: the belief that an amazing occurrence is divine, the closeness of a society which results in its separation from the beliefs of another, or a way for a governing body or simply a single autocrat to control the populace. Do it right or you'll burn forever is an effective way to make people obey, after all.

This has been Krieger, your guide to all things obvious.

>>77
If Indians don't know much of what is happening about the world, the how come they know so damn much about what's happening in my computer?

doesn't something have to exist for you to argue that it doesn't exist?

>>79

that makes no sense at all to me. it's like saying you can't say 'billy isn't in this room' unless billy is actually in the room. actual existence isn't a prerequisite for an argument against that things existence. i would think the just very idea something existed (invisible pink unicorn, for instance) and the lack of evidence then for that thing would be grounds enough to pose the question.

>>57

the problem with your argument is that all you did was boil it down to the point where you're not saying it's a SPECIFIC being that is responsible for the initial spark of stimulus but ANYTHING sentient. you've just found a clever way of side-stepping the use of the word God and replacing it with the term 'sentient initial stimulus'. it's still vulnerable to the burden of proof and Occam's razor, and you've left a possibility so open ended that you could very well say that you have no proof it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster because you have no way to test for sure it wasn't so there's every chance it was.

So here's what i think we get to do: we DO get to ignore the idea the universe was created by an initial sentient stimulus because there is no proof to back of the extraordinary claim. It's not arrogant to do that because even the theories we currently have, with all the evidence pushing them forward, are still vulnerable to being disproved (our understanding of gravity might be completely off, but it's still a better theory than the hand of god keeping all things moving as they should). only when a theory has something substantial to back it up will it ever be considered. 'intelligent design' has no such evidence, at least none that isn't warped and misinterpreted science.

>>81
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ZXcVsqNGQ&feature=related
haha your talking me you shitfaced cockmaster how fucking smart are u to have the courage to diss me over the internet acting all tough and shit man give me ur address i will cut ur ass up. HEres mine edmonds, washington 202 9th Ave. S. 98020 IF you want to do some real shit then shut me up but if not fuck my balls

>>80
Pretty sure >>79 was trolling, sparky.

>>79
you got us.  the concept of God exists.  o shites.

the Unicorners fail, btw.  whether or not pink unicorns exist has no impact on my concept of the world at large.  God is a tad more significant.

>>81
(our understanding of gravity might be completely off, but it's still a better theory than the hand of god keeping all things moving as they should).

"better theory"??  by what standard, your mom's vagina?  that's exactly what the theists claim--that the idea of God is a better theory than the idea of no God.  both arguments are subjective.  fail.

>>84
Whether or not it's personally significant to you doesn't enter into it. If you think it does, you haven't understood the argument.
It's just a demonstration of the fact that ``faith'' is bullshit.

>>86
that's a valid point, but it's not personal significance, it's existential significance.  unicorns would be some other created thing, but God* would be the creator.  that's the broken parallel.


*if God is considered The Uncreated, as we consider the universe to be Uncreated.

I believe you are all arguing on the wrong track. Atheists, please take a look at http://dis.4chan.org/read/sci/1195873140/1-40 . Theists, don't bother. And PLEASE, be mature, cussing does not make you look any better.
>>82
This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Grow up, just because you can "cut someone up" doesn't mean you have an ounce of intelligence.

>>85
'better' as in able to be tested as opposed to not.

Here's what I think:

Since things that aren't made of matter can't be sentient, a God can not exist.

>>89
how does testing make a theory better?  you can drop a pencil 4 million times and construct your theory of gravity but you don't actually know that it will drop the same way next time.

which brings up a bigger problem.  science depends on the assumption that there are reasonable explanations for observed phenomenon.  why do we presume that is true?

>>91
uhnn

which brings up a bigger problem.  science depends on the assumption that there are reasonable explanations for observed phenomenon.  why do we presume that is true?
Because it's worked so far, and there's no real reason to believe it'll stop working in the future.
The problem of induction is strictly speaking a real one, but since the only alternative is a paranoia-based worldview that itself has zero evidence so far to back it up means that it's mostly just something for undergrad (and middle school) philosophers to masturbate over.

>>91
"how does testing make a theory better?"
how does it NOT make it better? how does making experiments, predicting the outcome based on the rules you've been given, seeing if they match up with the results, then figuring out why the results didn't match the prediction and changing it accordingly NOT a good way of figuring out if the rule you're looking at works better than another one? what would you suggest we do to verify the way something works or compare the accuracy of two different models of how something works?

"you can drop a pencil 4 million times and construct your theory of gravity but you don't actually know that it will drop the same way next time."

you're right. there's every possibility that the pencil will go up on that 4 million and one time you drop it. the great thing with science is that for any rule or theory you create there's always the possibility you got it slightly, or completely, wrong, and it's only a matter of time before you find an exception to the rule and you have to explain why it happened. Science has the ability to refine or completely discard any theory it finds does not fit the predictions the theory makes based on the results it observes by testing. right now the best theory we have for how to explain the seemingly random behavior of things at the atomic level is possibly quantum physics, string theory, and most recently the E8 pattern thing (hell, we have two separate but massive sets of physical laws we can't put together at the moment and we don't know why). At any point any or all of those theories can be cast out due to new findings or because a more accurate theory is introduced. The major problem with mainstream religion is that there's no such mechanism for correction or adaptation. there is THE WORD and all you can do is interpret it. you can't add or take away from it because you've put yourself under the assumption that it is THE WORD and the only benefit of doubt you have is that fallible man got the details wrong so you get to fight over semantics.

"which brings up a bigger problem.  science depends on the assumption that there are reasonable explanations for observed phenomenon.  why do we presume that is true?"

Because everything we've observed thus far supports this assumption. Again, science has a self correcting mechanism that would allow current theories and rules to be refined or replaced. Even now we see things that don't follow our current laws of physics. The event Horizon of a black hole is a place where physics breaks down completely and we have no idea why that is. Hell, we may never know why that is but we strive to expand and refine our thinking. Science never presumes it's the final word on how things work, but only that it's the best explanation we have at the moment given the evidence observed.

There is no way to know that god exists unless he presents himself in some way. The very idea of god places him outside the realm of science, making it impossible to disprove his existence. We can't know for sure. Stop trying, and just focus on making the world a better, happier place with less war, violence, and suffering. And more vidjagames.

>>95
For fuck's sake.

The very idea of god places him outside the realm of science
BULL. SHIT.
There is no such thing as "outside the realm of science".

making it impossible to disprove his existence.
It's impossible to disprove the existence of a god (or the supernatural, or anything) because it's impossible to prove a negative, not because it's "outside the realm of science".

We can't know for sure.
We can't know anything for sure. That doesn't mean it's a meaningless discussion.

Stop trying, and just focus on making the world a better, happier place with less war, violence, and suffering.
Considering the proportion of war, violence, and suffering that's caused by religion, this is a very important debate indeed.

The fact that you aren't bright enough to understand the premise of the discussion doesn't mean it's not a valid discussion.

i find both sides of such an argument repugnant. perhaps if the purpose is to ease persecution on one’s behalf, then it is slightly more dignified. but honestly, the further [science] progresses, the more efficient it becomes at making predictions, and the more we see that we can recreate anything that exists in nature, as long as we have the materials to do so. eventually we will construct human immortality, singular consciousness, we will ascend to the purest abstract thought, and transcend human language, words, emotions altogether. we will build infinite virtual worlds that are as real as the one we live in, send impulses to our brain to make us feel or believe whatever we want to. humans will themselves become [gods], and subdue the universe, encounter imaginary conflict far grander than that of [darwinism] vs. [intelligent design], and less than halfway across our infinite journey, we will come to realize that words such as [atheism] and [theism] are obsolete. an endless sea of the brightest pawns can debate endless ideas with the same words that cut and fit together like the most (seemingly) elaborate puzzle, with definitions of [god] that are nearly polar opposites, when they themselves in their hypocrisy are desperately far from the capacity to ever comprehend a perfect being, or even a superior being that could create themselves, or even simply themselves. before you can take a look at god and tell him he does or doesn’t exist, first look in the mirror, and see yourself in your present state of material confinement and depravity. why do so many perceive skepticism as closed-mindedness, and in turn that closed-mindedness as a negative force? a disbelief that the material universe around you is reality is equivalent to a belief that something else is reality, or an open-mindedness to the possibility or worlds dominated by laws we can’t comprehend that exist outside the limits of ours. these are essentially the same force. when two ideas both have evidence for them, both evidence against them, the majority of those that place their faith in those ideas will inevitably do so based on merely what they WANT to believe. their is no argument for or against such broad and vague ideas, only room for argument for the evidence, the definition, the details. all else is a matter of where the sunbeams end and the starlight begins. if it’s less than a mystery to you, if it’s less than something you’re open to as a possibility, then i’d advise you take a look in the mirror, but that’s just me.

one last thing that i cannot seem to stress or put out there enough. there is no such thing as [religion]. religion is belief. everyone believes. belief is not the process of going through life and picking ideas to place one’s faith in, it is the process of going through life and recognizing that given the truth of certain premises, something that follows will inevitably be true. everyone does and must establish their thinking based on logic. it is blatantly ignorant to assume that anyone given any [religious] title(christian, atheist, muslim, wiccan, etc.) believes in even remotely the same thing as the majority of those who claim or are given the same label, and it is equally ignorant to assume you know for what reasons they believe it.

if any of this came as less than typical to you, then i am not one of you. you are the normalies. you are responsible for everything that is wrong with our world.

(0)(0)
(>'  <what the fuck happened to my bunny?

>>97
tl;dr copy pasta is tl;dr.

it all comes down to the burden of proof, and that always lies with the positive. ie: the person who says "there is a god", "there are oompa loompas" not with the negative. for athiests its "there is evolution" and yes there is proof. see we can do it, why cant you christfags? oh wait. its cause you cant right. youd rather be complacent and eternally ignorant. never question why or how. you are holding us back. your holding society back. you are a disease. GTFO my universe and take your hippy supernatural voodoo candyland ass shit with you

the burdon of proof lays with the claimer,

thats all this boils down to, people can beleive in god all they want but they CANT claim to have proof of his existance,

just let all the relifags beleive in what they want aslong as they accept that they havent proved what they beleive

just let all the relifags beleive in what they want aslong as they accept that they havent proved what they beleive
And as long as they don't indoctrinate their children, or kill or injure non-believers over it.
Unfortunately, your magical fairy-land harmless believers only barely exist.

religion does not=believing in magic.
get that through your narrow skull.

relifags=word only used by cocksuckers.

>>102
"religion does not=believing in magic."

actually it does. Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

>>103

Conclusive?

>>95
>>99
>>100

oh my God-we-don't-believe-in. 

please stop parroting the claim that God has to prove himself.  obviously, every religion claims that he has.  whether he created the fucking universe or put shade over buddha or told mohammed how to blow or whatever the fuck it was he did, every religion says God proved his own existence.

so there are claims, bitches.  dispute the claims, don't just say you need more of them.

>>101
>as long as they don't indoctrinate their children

so basically, you're pissed off because your mom was a christian.  way to pwn your mom.

>>101
>as long as they don't indoctrinate their children

so basically, you're pissed off because your mom was a christian.  way to pwn your mom.  hi-5!!!!oneone!!

>>105

Yeah, God proved his existence through stories written in a book that was inspired by himself. Circular logic: do you know it?

>>106
>>107

or maybe he's upset that these people are taking advantage of the naivety of these children to plant in their little minds fantastic stories without given them a chance to question them or think for themselves (at least at a certain age you tell them that santa clause is fake. but then again santa doesn't send you to hell when you're bad, he just gives you coal). just because he's against it doesn't mean he was a victim of it.

>>104
yes, conclusive. read the whole of exodus 22. i just gave a quick example. you think there would have been Salem witch trials if it didn't say anything about magic or witches being bad?

>>109

False idols?

>>110
no. it's specific in a few other passages that witches, magic users, are specifically bad in addition to worshiping false idols.

http://bible.cc/exodus/22-18.htm

>>105-106
My mom was an atheist, same as me. However, I've seen too many otherwise bright children ruined by the religion of their parents.
Also, way to fail at quoting and hitting the reply button.

>>112
It's a shame your mother brainwashed you into disbelieving in God.

>>113
I wish my parents hadn't "brainwashed" me into disbelieving in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

>>113
Religion was never actually discussed when I was loli, so no brainwashing here. I only found out she was an atheist when I was in my late teens.

>>115
same here. i knew OF god but that was it. it wasn't something they felt needed to come up. i had my dad to be afraid of when i was little, i don't think i needed fire and brimstone added to it.

i still believed in Santa and the easter bunny for a while, but that ended when i woke up early one morning and the easter baskets were in my parents room instead of in front of my door, and i noticed Santa's handwriting was suspiciously like my moms.

my parents did a good deal of lying to keep my belief in Santa alive...

Me: 'mom, why aren't there any of Santa's presents under the tree?'
Mom: 'well, i had a dream that Santa couldn't get down our chimney, so he left the presents in the garage. i woke up and there they were, so i gotta go get them and put them under the tree. go upstairs while i do that.'
(as she was wrapping the presents at the last minute i looked downstairs to see if the presents were out yet)
Mom: 'don't look, you'll ruin the magic'
-----
me: (i came downstairs to notice the plate of cookies i put out wasn't there. turns out my dad had eaten them and put the plate away) 'hey mom, where's the plate of cookies i left out?'
mom: 'oh. well Santa was so nice that he ate the cookies and put the dishes away in the dishwasher. wasn't that nice?'
-----
I always wondered why when i left carrots out for the reindeer, that it seemed like the same carrots ended up in the fridge the next morning. parents told me they had bought separate carrots for house use.

i can only imagine what they might have said if i was raised in a religious household and i started asking questions about god that were hard to answer... i wonder how long i would have believed them...

a bit off topic, but let's assume god does exist. i have a question about the bible itself. Why did god, in all his omnipotence and omniscience, thought it would be a good idea to impart his WORD through man, a being he knows by this point is severely flawed after falling from grace. Why does he allow man to write it in such ambiguous language? why does he not account for the fact that centuries later when this book is ready that a lot of the shit that happens in it doesn't make a whole lotta sense now that we know a little bit more about how the universe works?

Being omnipotence and omniscience, wouldn't it have been better to do it yourself so there's no misunderstanding? Why didn't he carve the damn thing into a mountain? Why didn't he have it written in a language that has a little more variety in it so we aren't trying to pick the right word out of the handful of meanings it could be. Make an unambiguous language, a language that would stand the test of time without being misinterpreted (the Eskimos have so many words for snow BECAUSE it would be easy to misinterpret what they were saying if all they had was the word 'snow' when they meant 'sideways blowing sleet'). Why didn't he leave a copy of this damn book on the moon like the space odyssey monolith so that when we reached that point, holy shit, there's a bible on the moon!?

It just seems to me that a being with 20/20 foresight would have foreseen the problems with his current method of distribution and made a few pre-publishing changes.

>>117
As soon as you suppose something as powerful as god exists everything can be explained through the rules of magic (also know as His Divine Plan).

Maybe god sees another 2000 years in advance and it's His Plan to have an ambiguous holy book.

Anything the church has ever done right?
His Plan.
Anything the church has ever done wrong?
They weren't following His Plan.

Other religions? His Plan. By the way don't follow other religions and you won't get Crusade'd. Unless someone decides not to follow The Plan and do it anyways.

What about other denominations? Wouldn't His Plan include an unified church?
Those guys are using the wrong Plan. By the way don't ask so many questions. Questions are not part of The Plan.

My point is magic can justify anything

>>118

Win.

God would be such a powerful force that it probably doesn't even acknowledge our futile existance compared to it's infinite knowledge, etc, etc. My belief is that there is no god (in before everything came from nothing for no reason). But if there was a god, they're probably so much more superior than us, that they don't acknowledge anything single thing we do. Or just doesn't care.

As for religions worshiping a god, it seems a waste of time to me. Because we never know until we die, and are we so afraid of something we're so unsure of (hell?) that we would follow a religion (Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism etcetera) even if it seems illogical.

God or no god, we could never really prove. But I won't follow a religion out of fear.

That's my two cents.

atheism doesn't distinguish from religion in any appreciable manner.  'god' becomes the universe, 'religious rules' become scientific laws.  i mean if we're happy with that, kudos to us, but we're not really differentiating from religion.

>>121
That's adorable. It'd be less frightening if people didn't actually believe it.
The keyword is "evidence". Science has it. Religion does not.

thank you >>7
you have helped me dearly
i hope your reading this

>>121

do we pray to the universe? did the universe impart upon us a book of moral guidelines for how we should live our life? has anyone ever killed another person because that person didn't believe in the same universe as they did?

if the answer to any of those questions in 'yes' then please seek psychological help. if not then please come back with a less ridiculous notion.

>>122

>>91 here.  evidence suggests, but there is no such thing as proof in an open system (i.e. the universe).  >>121 is smoking something, but your comeback is actually stupid.

you guys are all giving yourselves way too much credit.  for the most part, people believe (or don't believe) in God (or the Easter bunny) because of nonrational reasons.  we're in almost no position to actually evaluate the truth claims of most religious or atheistic arguments conclusively.  so, we just end up choosing something convenient depending on our society, temperament, and desires.

>>125
Please figure out the difference between proof and evidence, cocknugget.

>>126
for the most part, people believe (or don't believe) in God (or the Easter bunny) because of nonrational reasons.
And when they realise that and shut the fuck up about it, instead of trying to claim they have anything to back up their beliefs, we can put this entire argument to rest.

we're in almost no position to actually evaluate the truth claims of most religious or atheistic arguments conclusively.
You too. Difference between evidence and proof.
We aren't in a position to evaluate any truth claim conclusively. That doesn't mean random shots in the dark get as much credence as actual science.

There's a cat on the table.
God can't possibly exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7p2h2Lgpqg

god exists

hte cake is a life
THREAD OVER

Atheism:
The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist.

Insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist.

Insufficient reason.

Insufficient.

Atheism wins.

Atheism
The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist.

Insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist.

Insufficient reason

Atheism wins.

http://img.waffleimages.com/7cd95c191dbe7ff46ee7f1556f7b0076c0e517b9/n18708009_31701971_9598.jpg

ATHEISM LOSES BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO. HAHA FAGOTS.

GOD DOES NOT EXIST. PROOF? FRONT PAGE.

>>135
you're right :(

>>135
I've never found the problem of evil to be all that convincing.
It works against the Abrahamic religions, but not against theism in general.

Even if there was a God, Christians are still stupid, mindless idiots who probably pissed him off more than Atheists.