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)

>>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.