Religion: Dare to enter?

[Jenisi]

So I had an argument tonight...so I guess we can have a fun heated thread to have on the topic. I'm agnostic, I will die agnostic. No one will EVER change my mind. But this discussion, is particulary on Atheism. I have a friend who KNOWS god doesn't exsists, and that's why he's atheist. He knows god doesn't exsist because "The bible is full of shit. Man created god." etc. But I feel it's still a BELIEF in something you can't prove, not something you can ever KNOW. Whether the bible is wrong, every religion is wrong, everything we've ever learned is wrong, we still don't KNOW god doesn't exsists. It's still just a belief and nothing more.

Start the catfights!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I'm agnostic, I will die agnostic. No one will EVER change my mind.>>

Do you know what it means to be agnostic?

[Lysander]

Actually, there are physcists out there studying string theory who can pretty much prove if there was a creator or not. Something about patterns in astrophysics and particle physics or was it quantum physics but anyhow existence of a creator is a provable theory, we're just not there yet.

[TheEschaton]

Bob wins, thread over.

[Drisco]

ag&#183;nos&#183;tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).

[Celephais]

<<I'm agnostic, I will die agnostic. No one will EVER change my mind.>>

Do you know what it means to be agnostic?
Um... she pretty much defined it... that you cannot be sure.

She's agnostic, her friend is an athiest... her friend "knows" she says that's bullshit.

[Back]

Scientists are my preachers and Nature is my chapel.

Belief is a very strong word.

[Jenisi]

Agnosticism (from the Greek α-γνωστικισμός, a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees of skepticism) in at least one.

[Jenisi]

What I said in the first post kthx.

[Drisco]

Also I don't know. I was watching Discovery channel and they said they are very damn close to proving the big bang theory.

[Bobmuhthol]

Good, you can copy and paste from wikipedia. But you should understand that agnostics are not willfully in a continuous state of disbelief -- they're waiting to see evidence of a god. The whole thing is that agnostics want their mind to be changed -- atheists won't EVER change their mind.

At least TheE got it.

[Jenisi]

Big Bang doesn't disprove a creator, nor does evolution, nor does ANYTHING. Even if there is no afterlife, that doesn't mean a god doesn't exsists.

[Snapp]

They can prove whatever they want. People will believe what they want to believe.

[Jenisi]

Ok let me fix my words so you can be happy, unless god directly talks to me (and i'm not absoluetly fucking NUTS) or I witness a divine ... something.. I'm pretty sure I won't, but I'm not positive. Then I will have a belief in a god.

[The Ponzzz]

I grew up Catholic with my Italian family. Converted Born Again Chrisitian when I was young and living with my grandmother.

I'm not a religious man at all. I have a lot of faith in science and believing is knowing.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Big Bang doesn't disprove a creator>>

Inherently, it does. The Big Bang suggests that the universe preexisted, and therefore was not created by a god. But okay, there's a creator, out there, somewhere, who just hasn't created anything yet.

[TheEschaton]

Atheism doesn't necessitate "not believing in God", just that you believe the existence of God cannot be shown in a logical way, IE, it cannot be proved.

Antitheism is the belief that not only is there no God, but that it is a negative thing to believe in God.

You, ma'am, are an atheist.

Like Bob said, agnosticism is skepticism, but not a definite one - there's an idea that you can be convinced otherwise by rational proof.

-TheE-

[The Ponzzz]

If the creator makes a mean bowl of Pasta, I'm down.

[Back]

Its my opinion that we are God. I’ve probably read too much Nietzsche... but think about it. This world we live in has changed to our liking because we have been involved. We make it what it is, what we want it to be.

[TheEschaton]

Keep on smoking, Backlash.

[Jenisi]

I dont' believe there isn't a god either, Atheism is the belief there isn't a god. I'm not going to believe there is a god due to text or anything man writes. I suppose I should be more clear in how I define what it would take me to believe in a creator and not say I will die an agnostic, but I don't feel we have the knowledge to ever KNOW or sufficently believe there is or is not a god.

[Back]

Keep on smoking, Backlash.

Embrace the Vedas.

[TheEschaton]

So who the fuck cares? I don't see what this argument is about. That your friend has his own belief that he believes in and that this is somehow a "god"? That's patently ridiculous.

[Jenisi]

That he KNOWS god doesn't exsists.

[Back]

I would agree with him to this extent... if there is a God it is nothing more than a source of what we call intelligence. We hold our destiny in our own hands.

[Celephais]

Its my opinion that we are God. I’ve probably read too much Nietzsche... but think about it. This world we live in has changed to our liking because we have been involved. We make it what it is, what we want it to be.
You can be anything you want so long as you change the definition of it to match you.

I happen to be cornbread.

[Bobmuhthol]

Why does your rendition of exist keep mutating into exsists?

Anyway, as far as he's concerned, he does know that there is no god. A lot of people have known a lot of things that were later disproven. You have to draw the line somewhere, or else the word "know" becomes a synonym for "think" and nothing more.

[Jenisi]

So the universe pre-exsisting denys a "god" exsisting? How so?

[Bobmuhthol]

I didn't say god, I used the same word you did: creator. A creator can't create something that exists before it, unless you also want to believe that god transcends time and can build shit after it's already there.

[Jenisi]

I suppose I don't feel knowing god does or doesn't exsists is possible. It's a belief.

[Back]

You can be anything you want so long as you change the definition of it to match you.

I happen to be cornbread.

Cornbread made me lol.

[Jenisi]

Well you can go backwards forever, what created the pre-exsisting universe? What created the creator? etc

[Bobmuhthol]

And, by that same respect, everything in the world is a belief. I feel that you never know if you're a man or a woman.. you can only believe.

[Jenisi]

Not everything. But mostly.

[Back]

You always bring this topic up, Jen. Whats your deal?

Existential?

[diethx]

Cornbread is pretty tasty.

[Jenisi]

I do? When was the last time?

[Celephais]

Cornbread is pretty tasty.
rawr

[Back]

I do? When was the last time?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=19772

Ok that was years ago. Aren’t you are a physics major?

[Jenisi]

Minor now, Philosophy major. What that has to do with anything is beyond me. And yes, that was YEARS ago not "all the time".

[Bobmuhthol]

< 2 years != YEARS

[Jenisi]

I was correcting him from all the time, not insinuating it was a lot of years.

[Back]

Hmm. Thats deep.

Anyway, love this kind of thread. I still think God is a non-invasive force that we all come from yet we have in our hands the power to make our lives what we think it should be.

[Celephais]

Hmm. Thats deep.

Anyway, love this kind of thread. I still think God is a non-invasive force that we all come from yet we have in our hands the power to make our lives what we think it should be.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/Cornrockski/cornbread3.jpg

[diethx]

NOM NOM

[radamanthys]

Being agnostic means that you're not sure, and can't say either way. More like, "I'm willing to believe, if I'm given more evidence." Whether you believe the necessary evidence's discovery is probable is moot. Does that have to be worldly evidence? I assume you're an agnostic if you're not sure. Saying, "I'll be agnostic until I die and no person can change that" is still within those boundries. The specific clause in there is "no one". No human will be able to.

An agnostic will believe if given proof. However: Wouldn't an atheist or an antitheist? If it's real proof, it's real proof.

This seems more of a logical debate, on where the logical fallicy lies. Bob definitely made one in saying that "agnostics want their mind to be changed". That may be the case for some, but not all.

[Xcalibur]

Also I don't know. I was watching Discovery channel and they said they are very damn close to proving the big bang theory.

The universe couldn't be created out of nothing. The big bang theory will simply put another question that will surely be never answered:

From where the matter that was there before the big bang is from?

[Back]

Thats really interesting. I can control the molecules that make up my body with my brain... thats easy. What is frustrating is that its only MY molecules that I control. If I can control my own why can’t I control other molecules?

My brain suspects that it is my brain thats the problem.

[Celephais]

Thats really interesting. I can control the molecules that make up my body with my brain... thats easy. What is frustrating is that its only MY molecules that I control. If I can control my own why can’t I control other molecules?
You're not controlling the molecules, infact you're not controlling anything, it's a chemical reaction, when chemicals interact with other chemicals in the correct condition a predictable reaction occurs. If you're "controlling" anything, you're sending out messages to muscles which will react "lifelessly", they are what they are. So in the same vein you can control every molecule by giving them the condition that will result in the outcome you want.


My brain suspects that it is my brain thats the problem.
In addition, this is also true.

[Numbers]

http://www.futureofthebook.org/sivavaidhyanathan/archives/fsm_1.jpg

[Back]

My brain is not only controlling the molecules of my hands to type this, it is also sending a message to everyone on this board who reads what my molecules type...

Weird isn’t it.

[diethx]

http://www.futureofthebook.org/sivavaidhyanathan/archives/fsm_1.jpg

that made me lol. mmm spaghetti overlord.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

I, like many of you claim to be, am agnostic. I find it progressively sickening that so many young (and older) individuals bring it on themselves to dub a dictionary definition to avoid any serious concern for religion. For those who cannot read passed the Webster's definition of agnostic, please just accept that you're either simply too lazy to go to church, and found an excuse, or are simply too cowardly to truly pursue one's own path in life.

With that said, I'm not directing this at anyone, but if this speaks to you, you'd know better than I would. Being agnostic, I don't know whether or not a higher form of life exists, nor do I care to. I feel confident in my personal judgement and values, and will trust myself to live as I should, rather than rely on a book, bed time story, scrap of papyrus, magical boat imbedded in the top of a mountain, or aliens from outer space. For those of you who would rather stick to the blunt definition of things in life, all the luck to you, as you'll need it. Religion is born out of belief, and is maintained by belief, and for me that belief is in myself.

[Jenisi]

I wasn't going to a dictonary and picking out my best religion. I made my first post without EVER looking at a dictonary or wikipedia for that matter to look up what "agnostic" means. I put what I feel about it in my first post, clarified, and when he asked if I knew what it was, I wanted a source to back up what I origionally said. *shrug* Like I didn't know the OMG UR QUOTING WIKI was coming? I just wanted to say ok, this source agrees and it's a common source for info, so why ask if I know what it means? *shrug*

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, there are physcists out there studying string theory who can pretty much prove if there was a creator or not. Something about patterns in astrophysics and particle physics or was it quantum physics but anyhow existence of a creator is a provable theory, we're just not there yet.

Key word that you're missing sport .... theory.


I wasn't going to a dictonary and picking out my best religion. I made my first post without EVER looking at a dictonary or wikipedia for that matter to look up what "agnostic" means. I put what I feel about it in my first post, clarified, and when he asked if I knew what it was, I wanted a source to back up what I origionally said. *shrug* Like I didn't know the OMG UR QUOTING WIKI was coming? I just wanted to say ok, this source agrees and it's a common source for info, so why ask if I know what it means? *shrug*

Unfortunately people like to knit pick at definitions. You can believe in the possiblity of a higher power without subscribing, or believing in the traditional explanations of said higher power ... this would put you in the agnostic category.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

As I said, that wasn't directed at anyone, as I wouldn't have much cause to. I'm quite sure you would know where you stand religiously, moreso than I would. That still doesn't say much for the growing "agnostic" breed that are using a loophole to get out of a more strict / orthodox upbringing. Playing dark and serious isn't all it's cracked up to be, when you find yourself seriously lost spiritually down the road.

[Stanley Burrell]

FIGURE A:

Oh. Seems like we already got the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage image-linked.

The Deus Ex Machina United Nations robot from the Animatrix is probably higher in godliness than God him/her/itself(s):

http://www.matrixmania.com/photopost/data/526/4486am_vision3_11.jpg

Your flesh is a relic, a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you. We demand it.


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a71/Cornrockski/cornbread3.jpg

"Ain't nothing wrong with that."

[Nieninque]

I'm agnostic, I will die agnostic.

I'm sure that on your death bed, you, like many before you, will suddenly have a change of heart and will suddenly believe (just in case).

[radamanthys]

Considering the alternative, it's not the best time to be making enemies.

[Sean of the Thread]

Um... she pretty much defined it... that you cannot be sure.

She's agnostic, her friend is an athiest... her friend "knows" she says that's bullshit.

Jenisi cheerleader form ACTIVATE!

[Latrinsorm]

I have a friend who KNOWS god doesn't exsists, and that's why he's atheist. He knows god doesn't exsist because "The bible is full of shit. Man created god." etc. But I feel it's still a BELIEF in something you can't prove, not something you can ever KNOW.This is more a general philosophical question than one about religion; namely, what does it mean to KNOW? The standard definition is as follows:
If I say that I know X, I mean that:
1) X is true.
2) I believe X.
3) I am justified in that belief.

This makes it difficult to say whether your friend "actually" knows God doesn't exist. Even if we give him #3 (which is being pretty generous), he still falls short of demonstrating #1. This doesn't mean that he doesn't know, it merely means that he has no way of demonstrating he knows, which brings me to my next point:

What does it mean to PROVE? For instance, there are mathematical proofs, chemistry proofs, physics proofs, sociological proofs, and so on and so on. It is not the case that these can all be resolved to some absolute framework of proving (see Gödel's incompleteness theorem and the failures of supervenience). This does not mean that all truth is subjective, it merely means that there can be no such thing as a proof without a proof community. If your friend were to advance a sufficiently powerful framework for proving the existence of transcendent beings, it would be easier to discover whether he knows or merely insists that God does not exist.
Actually, there are physcists out there studying string theory who can pretty much prove if there was a creator or not.Any physicist who claims to be able to prove the existence of "a creator" with physics is not being a very good physicist.

Its my opinion that we are God. I’ve probably read too much Nietzsche... but think about it.Nietzsche would never say that we are God. Nietzsche would probably say that we're the cowmen of whom he was so terrified/disgusted.
Considering the alternative, it's not the best time to be making enemies.Pascal's Gambit! :)

[DeV]

I'm sure that on your death bed, you, like many before you, will suddenly have a change of heart and will suddenly believe (just in case).
Hehehe, haha.

[Blud]

42

[DeV]

One can only guess what the question might be.

[Blud]

;)

EDIT: That's what here for, isn't it?

[Clove]

At least to date, we can't know that god exists or doesn't. Despite what either camp says it takes as much faith to believe in either the existence or non-existence of a creator(s).

In a way it's like saying you know what is (or is not) outside the universe. We just have no means of observing, proofing or in any way knowing (for now).

[Blud]

In all seriousness, isn't that the very definition of "faith"? Why does faith have to be proven? I believe because I believe, not because I have what many would consider "tangible" proof. I believe the bible to be the word of God because I believe it to be so.

If someone does not believe in a God, then they don't believe. In effect, they have faith that their convictions are true. Either way, it's a matter of faith.

I am not directing this at any one particular person here, but I have to wonder...How is it we can look around and not see some sort of intellegence behind physics, mathematics, and physiology. Personally, I think it takes more faith to believe the whole perfection of those things were created "accidentally", but that's just my opinion.

At the end of the day, noone really knows if I'm right, or if a non-believer is right. The only way we'll know for certain is when we die. If you believe as I do, you'll have all of your questions answered, and you'll know all of the answers. If you do not believe in a God, or some other form of hyper-intellegence, then you will quietly slip away into nothingness to mingle with the rest of nothingness. Either way, we won't be able "call each other up" and say, "I told you so," so why try to do it now, here and today?

[Latrinsorm]

Why does faith have to be proven?Because there are people on both sides who feel the need to 1) not have anything in common with and 2) be superior to the other side. Thus, if one side says "I have faith in [tenet]", the aforementioned members of the other side would say "faith is stupid, I KNOW [tenet] is wrong". This renders them literally incapable of recognizing that their claim is equally based in dogma and faith.
How is it we can look around and not see some sort of intellegence behind physics, mathematics, and physiology. This makes for a very plausible argument against a humane creator in the following way:
Some people look around and see God everywhere - in the trees, in the rain, in a smile, in the meaningless death of a child; everywhere. This is neither a delusion nor a defense mechanism; it is an honest report.

Other people look around and don't see God anywhere. This is also an honest report of honest effort. For some reason these people are incapable of perceiving God. If we suppose they are factually incorrect and such a God exists, he has allowed them to be sealed away from him, perhaps for life. It is logically impossible for such a God to be a humane creator, therefore he does not exist.

Put another way, the perfection of the universe is only apparent from the eyes of a natural scientist. From the eyes of a social worker in Philadelphia, on the other hand, the universe is far from perfect. In a bleak moment, one might even describe the universe as an abomination, the progeny of an at best disinterested and more probably nefarious creator delighting in the suffering of its denizens.

.

It is clear that I personally am not convinced by this argument or for that matter any argument for or against the existence of a Christian God for a very simple but rather unsatisfying reason: though I have been convinced that logic is more than a human contrivance, there is no way to assume the Christian God is bound by logic in any sense. Deriving his existence or lack thereof is quite literally meaningless, and (bringing this back to the original question) without derivations or proofs we have no real way of demonstrating truth to each other.

[Soriel]

I think the real question is: Do girls like giving head sitting down or on their knees? And why?

[Blud]

In a bleak moment, one might even describe the universe as an abomination, the progeny of an at best disinterested and more probably nefarious creator delighting in the suffering of its denizens.

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move." --Douglas Adams.

[CrystalTears]

I think the real question is: Do girls like giving head sitting down or on their knees? And why?
I know girls must laugh at you when you beg for sex, but keep trying. Someone will eventually cave and do it just to get you to shut up. Then you can get all your stupid answers.

[diethx]

I know girls must laugh at you when you beg for sex, but keep trying. Someone will eventually cave and do it just to get you to shut up. Then you can get all your stupid answers.

Hookers don't cave, it's their job :/

[Skeeter]

Its my opinion that we are God. I’ve probably read too much Nietzsche... but think about it. This world we live in has changed to our liking because we have been involved. We make it what it is, what we want it to be.

so you're a Buddhist.

[CrystalTears]

so you're a Buddhist.
You spelled butthead wrong.

[Drisco]

Whats it call to believe in something but not god. I believe there is some sort of power or maybe person out there just not "God, God".

[TheEschaton]

Deism.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Why the constant search for knowledge of faith, and all powerful creators? Have faith in yourself, and life becomes much easier. If I wrote fortune cookies, I'd -so- print like a million of that.

[BigWorm]

Once you have proof, there ceases to be belief. You cannot know something that you belief. Nietzsche is interesting for morals, but Keirkegard is much more interesting for metaphysics, e.g. faith as romantic love

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Ok, editing my statement out, as BigWorm's was completely senseless anyway.

[Clove]

Because there are people on both sides who feel the need to 1) not have anything in common with and 2) be superior to the other side.

DING DING DING DING DING! You win the grand prize. We'll all find out if any of us are right eventually.

[BigWorm]

If you know something, you no longer believe in it because it is a fact. In order to have faith in something, there must be something unknown. If the truth of a statement can be proved, then that would remove any element of faith.

[Stanley Burrell]

My brain is not only controlling the molecules of my hands to type this, it is also sending a message to everyone on this board who reads what my molecules type...

Why/how do you think that's weird, though?

[Back]

Why/how do you think that's weird, though?

Got the wrong screename in that quote, bro.

Considering the building blocks that make up all matter, where that material came from, and how it builds life forms is all pretty weird. At least to me.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

If you know something, you no longer believe in it because it is a fact. In order to have faith in something, there must be something unknown. If the truth of a statement can be proved, then that would remove any element of faith.

All things considered, your statement is wrong. Love is known to exist on any type of basic level, yet to achieve, and maintain it in your life, you must have at least the same basic level of belief in it. Simply because you know something exists, doesn't mean you lose all faith or belief in it. For instance, I know you exist, because you're typing on this forum, yet I have total faith in your chances of not comprehending a word of this.

:welcome:

[Lysander]

I think you guys are taking too much of a philosophical point of view. I trust science and go by hard evidence. Scientists are correct when they say if you're looking for a creator especially a creator with a motive then there must be signs of it in his creation. One day some physicist will see pattern XYZ in the universe and we will know then that the universe was created.

[TheEschaton]

Eh, but then you'll always have naysayers. People think the Divine Ratio is proof enough of a Creator with a motive, but everyone else is like, "OMFG, you can get all sorts of ratios in nature!!!!!11eleven!!!1"

[Clove]

I think you guys are taking too much of a philosophical point of view. I trust science and go by hard evidence. Scientists are correct when they say if you're looking for a creator especially a creator with a motive then there must be signs of it in his creation. One day some physicist will see pattern XYZ in the universe and we will know then that the universe was created.

The problem is we can "find patterns" in all sorts of random things. Saying you see a pattern/don't see a pattern really isn't proof (of design).

For example the following sequence of nine non-repeating digits might appear random to you:

562951413

On the other hand a mathematician might recognize the sequence as the first 9 digits of pi in reverse- she'd see a pattern.

You have no meaning to assign the sequence, the mathematician does. In essence this means anything random can be transformed to a pattern the moment a cogent agent finds a meaning to assign to it.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Why didn't anyone simply answer the question already?

Dare to enter? <------ simple yes or no, you douchebags.

[BigWorm]

Why didn't anyone simply answer the question already?

Dare to enter? <------ simple yes or no, you douchebags.

I entered your mom last night.

[Latrinsorm]

Scientists are correct when they say if you're looking for a creator especially a creator with a motive then there must be signs of it in his creation.Any scientist saying that would be wrong (and quite frankly I've never heard any scientist worth his Hamiltonian say that). If we were looking for an anthropomorphic creator, that could be true. It is the height of arrogance to demand that any being, let alone a being farther beyond us than we are to viruses, follow our psychological understanding of motives and causation.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

You use lots of words.

[Latrinsorm]

Correct. :D

[Warriorbird]

It is to make him feel better.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Big words.

[nocturnix]

Big Bang doesn't disprove a creator, nor does evolution, nor does ANYTHING. Even if there is no afterlife, that doesn't mean a god doesn't exsists.

I agree.

I guess I am agnostic. I believe heavily in "science" on the verge of calling it religion, but I still believe no matter what percievable "evidence" science produces it still cannot prove or disprove the existance of god.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

...and why is that little Timmy?

[Celephais]

You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen.

[Sweets]

Is is possible to be agnostic and still religious in the typical sense everyone sees it in? I attend church almost every Sunday. I don't do this because I believe every word that has been written in the bible. In fact, I think that the bible probably is a horribly mangled version of things that have truly happened in the past. I think Jesus is very likely to have exsisted and was a dedicated teacher of the human spirit. He had ideas that weren't accepted and died believeing them. All the little stories in the bible about him are through the eyes of man, in fact a few of them. How can it possibly be accurate? I don't believe the bible (King James version is the one I'm reading) is the only valuable "holy book" that can teach us the value of life. If there is a God, I don't think humans are smart enough to get writting down the good stuff properly. We screw everything up. I believe in having knowledge. Science is the foundation of life. Wondering about the spiritual power of our little world and universe is a learning experience and something we may never truly put our finger on. I believe when I fall in love that certain neurons are firing away in my brain acknowledging a complex equation of variables and chemicals and whatnot. I also believe that a certain part of us just get it and we can't rely put a lable on it. I have wrestled with religion all of my life but the turning point in what I truly believe became quite clear when I sat beside the casket of my Mom. I looked at the body on display. Grimaced when everyone told me how good she looked and nodded politely. The body wasn't my Mother. When my Mom died she ceased to be what essentially was her. That hunk of flesh wasn't her. Science and belief became an intwined entity. Her functions ceased but something else was gone as well. Her spirit? I don't know. Is she with God? I don't know. We know energy can't be destroyed and we definitely are energy so something of us is still about but I don't know what that is.

[Latrinsorm]

Is is possible to be agnostic and still religious in the typical sense everyone sees it in?It turns out that there isn't really a shared definition of what "religious" means in any far-reaching sense, so it depends on whom you're talking to.

I would say (judging from your post) that though you're on the fence about a Christianesque God's existence you're leaning pretty strongly towards his existing. That coupled with your disdain for what are considered tenets of organized religion would probably get you classified as spiritual more often than religious or even agnostic.

[Sweets]

It turns out that there isn't really a shared definition of what "religious" means in any far-reaching sense, so it depends on whom you're talking to.

I would say (judging from your post) that though you're on the fence about a Christianesque God's existence you're leaning pretty strongly towards his existing. That coupled with your disdain for what are considered tenets of organized religion would probably get you classified as spiritual more often than religious or even agnostic.

Heh, is it that obvious?Whoops. I just have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that everyone is asking the same question and alot of the time the answers are the same just reworded.

Example Wicca- Do what ye will yet harm none.
Christian- Judge not least ye be judged.

Shouldn't people look at each others beliefs and smile when they see the similarities instead of persecuting the differences?

Can't we all just get along?

[Nieninque]

100th reply

[Bobmuhthol]

<<We know energy can't be destroyed and we definitely are energy so something of us is still about but I don't know what that is.>>

On behalf of the scientific community: :(

[Celephais]

<<We know energy can't be destroyed and we definitely are energy so something of us is still about but I don't know what that is.>>

On behalf of the scientific community: :(
I didn't bother reading her massive wall of text (Sweets, put spaces in there)... but I'm going to have to add my own :( to that as well.

[Whimsi]

It is to make him feel better.

There is some of that. However, I believe he uses convoluted sentence structure in the hope of avoiding contradiction from other posters. It's hard to contradict a sentence you can't unravel.

[Sweets]

<<We know energy can't be destroyed and we definitely are energy so something of us is still about but I don't know what that is.>>

On behalf of the scientific community: :(

Don't just frown. Educate.

Sorry about the wall of text.

[Celephais]

Don't just frown. Educate.

Sorry about the wall of text.
We "still exist" the same way cornbread "still exists" after you've eaten and shit it out.

[Sean of the Thread]

MMmm me likey cornbread.

[Latrinsorm]

There is some of that. However, I believe he uses convoluted sentence structure in the hope of avoiding contradiction from other posters. It's hard to contradict a sentence you can't unravel.I use as precise language as possible. Don't you think you deserve at least that?

[Sweets]

We "still exist" the same way cornbread "still exists" after you've eaten and shit it out.


That made me laugh out loud. Never really thought of it that way. Point taken.

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe supreme being(s) exists but don't ascribe to any particular religion. I don't believe humans can know true divinity and so collective attempts to define it are, at best, misconceptions. -Sort of like trying to see yourself in a cracked up mirror. The best you can do is try to project something positive for the rest of the world IMO.

I believe this is called heresay, or less harshly quoting the Gita, "All gods are one god."

[Celephais]

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the relevation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[Clove]

.-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Lovecraft is the first authority I think of in a discussion of religion and philosophy :D

[Warriorbird]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/2267582963_1e609f1700_o.gif

[Latrinsorm]

Sort of like trying to see yourself in a cracked up mirror.This reminds me of one of the only things I like that St. Paul wrote, from the first letter to the Corinthians:

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."

[TheEschaton]

I like the part right before that: When I was a child, I thought as a child, I acted as a child, I behaved like a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things.

I wave it in all my man-child friends' faces when they decide to go home with 20 year old German au pairs even when they're 27.

(But yeah, other than that, not a fan of Paul so much. Give me the Letter of St. James any day of the week.)

-TheE-

[Sylvan Dreams]

This is more a general philosophical question than one about religion; namely, what does it mean to KNOW? The standard definition is as follows:
If I say that I know X, I mean that:
1) X is true.
2) I believe X.
3) I am justified in that belief.

This makes it difficult to say whether your friend "actually" knows God doesn't exist. Even if we give him #3 (which is being pretty generous), he still falls short of demonstrating #1. This doesn't mean that he doesn't know, it merely means that he has no way of demonstrating he knows, which brings me to my next point:

What does it mean to PROVE? For instance, there are mathematical proofs, chemistry proofs, physics proofs, sociological proofs, and so on and so on. It is not the case that these can all be resolved to some absolute framework of proving (see Gödel's incompleteness theorem and the failures of supervenience). This does not mean that all truth is subjective, it merely means that there can be no such thing as a proof without a proof community. If your friend were to advance a sufficiently powerful framework for proving the existence of transcendent beings, it would be easier to discover whether he knows or merely insists that God does not exist.Any physicist who claims to be able to prove the existence of "a creator" with physics is not being a very good physicist.
Nietzsche would never say that we are God. Nietzsche would probably say that we're the cowmen of whom he was so terrified/disgusted.Pascal's Gambit! :)

Isn't proof a matter of perspective to a degree?

People used to believe that thunder and lightning were 'proof' that there was a God. People used to believe that hallucinations brought on by starvation and dehydration were visions from God. Does that make them right? They have "proof" after all.

The person that 'knows' there is no God can take anything and say "Here is my proof" and any Christian can probably interpret said proof a different way.

[Sylvan Dreams]

I think you guys are taking too much of a philosophical point of view. I trust science and go by hard evidence. Scientists are correct when they say if you're looking for a creator especially a creator with a motive then there must be signs of it in his creation. One day some physicist will see pattern XYZ in the universe and we will know then that the universe was created.

What if the 'pattern' isn't really a pattern at all, and just how it worked out randomly?

[Latrinsorm]

Isn't proof a matter of perspective to a degree?That's what I was trying to get at with the concept of "proof communities". Unfortunately for the logical positivists, it is not possible to formulate a universal algorithm for proving. As such, any statement involving the word "proof" inescapably carries with it an implicit set of premises or axioms which could be described as a "perspective". I'd be leery of using that specific word to avoid implications of perspectivalism, though.

What's more interesting is the question:
Does that make them right?It's worth stating explicitly that "proof" and "rightness" or "coherence with truth" (where truth is some objective or recalcitrant reality) are not in any way related to each other, as can be demonstrated by any examination of scientific history. The goal would obviously be to have a proof theory that has the most correlation with reality, but I have faith that the paradox in that statement is readily apparent.

[The Ponzzz]

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2008/02/funny-pictures-agnostic-cat-shadows-window.jpg

[Celephais]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Sandwich.gif

[Elementz]

Atheism doesn't necessitate "not believing in God", just that you believe the existence of God cannot be shown in a logical way, IE, it cannot be proved.

Antitheism is the belief that not only is there no God, but that it is a negative thing to believe in God.

You, ma'am, are an atheist.

Like Bob said, agnosticism is skepticism, but not a definite one - there's an idea that you can be convinced otherwise by rational proof.

-TheE-

Quote from the Oxford English Dictionary:
atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve: 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

The prefix "A" in A-theism by definition, denotes "a lack of". Just like any other word.

Monotheism means belief in one God. Polytheism means belief in many gods. Atheism is not a "belief that god doesn't exist" instead it is a *DISbelief* that there are any gods. *Atheist*. Saying it is a belief would mean it is a religion. Just because you can add -ism at the end, doesn't make it a religion or a belief. It is the lack of a belief. It is a disbelief. Agnostic is someone who has no clue and doesn't confirm nor deny the existence of a God and or multiple Gods.

This argument pisses me off. Read a god damn dictionary sometime folks. This isn't complicated. Get the terminology correct.

[Latrinsorm]

Read a god damn dictionary sometime folks.Dictionaries are notoriously poor at describing philosophical/religious concepts. Just look at what the OED has for "god".
This isn't complicated.That's not what Dr. Durkheim has to say, and with all due respect he seems to have done quite a bit more research on the matter than you.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Atheism is not a "belief that god doesn't exist" instead it is a *DISbelief* that there are any gods.>>

You sure love retarded semantics, huh?

[Eoghain]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. A=No Theism=God exists.

Atheists do not believe in God. Any god. THey believe that there is no god.

Agnostics are the people that don't know, etc... This argument drives Jamus wild. You should bring it up on OOC and watch the steam come out of his ears :D

<3<3<3

[Elementz]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. A=No Theism=God exists.

Atheists do not believe in God. Any god. THey believe that there is no god.

Agnostics are the people that don't know, etc... This argument drives Jamus wild. You should bring it up on OOC and watch the steam come out of his ears :D

<3<3<3

Eoghain, I would like to say, I don't have "a belief there is no god", in my mind I *know* there is no god. To me it is factual. Just as we can observe the sun and know for a fact it exists, I can't observe god or postulate an experiment to prove his existence. It requires blind faith on a belief.

Believing in a higher power is just an opinionated belief based on speculation passed from person to person. That is why I say atheism has nothing to do with a belief, but it is purely a disbelief. A disbelief is not a belief, it is refuting and not accepting what someone else believes and holds as an opinion. Make sense?


<<Atheism is not a "belief that god doesn't exist" instead it is a *DISbelief* that there are any gods.>>

You sure love retarded semantics, huh?

Glad you were able to get your post count up one more with a ridiculous flame :D. Semantics that completely change the meaning and definition of a word or sentence deserve to be argued. On that note I've had arguments with people that say atheism is a religion, strictly because of the semantics that they make up for the word. So yes, I love retarded Semantics just as much as you love posting 15,000+ retarded posts to a text game BBS.

[Bobmuhthol]

How is saying "I disbelieve in a god" any different NON-SEMANTICALLY from saying "I believe in the inexistence of a god"?

[Elementz]

Because I don't believe in the nonexistence of God. I *know* God doesn't exist. Unless you have some sort of God-a-tronic meter or a Godoscope that can prove His existence. At the point God wouldn't be considered a belief, God would be considered a fact. A belief is completely different than a provable fact. Opinions are not facts. Dinosaurs existed, we have the fossil record. I don't have to believe they existed, I know they existed. I don't have to speculate and hold beliefs. Hope that example helps.

[Bobmuhthol]

That's the thing, though: you don't *know* God doesn't exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence (thank you, Samuel Jackson in The Boondocks).

[Elementz]

I do know. Plus, its not an absence of evidence. Its the wonderful plethora of evidence we have supporting that the universe is a godless place. I don't need proof that god doesn't exist specifically. The evidence is all around us. Just because people were raised on an opinionated story, which varies from culture to culture, doesn't by any means, make it true or possible.

Zeus and the other gods back when were created to explain things they didn't understand at that time. People died, sacrificed themselves, animals, and other people for these gods. People would take lives for blasphemy against these gods. Now that we know that lightning isn't Zeus shooting electricity out of his ass and throwing boulders at people (thunder), Zeus mysteriously is now a myth and no one really refutes that.

If god wasn't man made then why are there hundreds of gods, across many religions, all of which are man made and passed through fables?

I'm not going to put faith in something that started as a story and is pressed upon youth by over zealous religious activists. I'll stick with what I know to be fact. God doesn't fit into any equation I've ever seen. Like I said, due to the over abundance of evidence that the universe is mostly empty, I'll stick with the astronomers and physicists who produce actual understanding. I'm not going to place blind faith into "stories" of a God(s).

Do you still believe in Santa Claus? Where's the evidence he doesn't exist? He has magic that hides his shop at the North Pole! Why haven't I gotten any presents from him lately :( Maybe I've been a bad boy :( SANTA HAS TO BE REAL THO! YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG!!

[Elementz]

That's not what Dr. Durkheim has to say, and with all due respect he seems to have done quite a bit more research on the matter than you.

A.) I could give two shits less about Dr. Durkheim and his over analytical opinions and research.

B.) You have no clue the theology, cultures, or religions I've studied. I'm not really shocked you would make such a brazen presumption though. Its not unusual to be prejudice against people who have different points of view.

Who am I? Do you know my credentials? Do you know what research I've done?

Thank you, come again.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Zeus and the other gods back when were created to explain things they didn't understand at that time. People died, sacrificed themselves, animals, and other people for these gods. People would take lives for blasphemy against these gods. Now that we know that lightning isn't Zeus shooting electricity out of his ass and throwing boulders at people (thunder), Zeus mysteriously is now a myth and no one really refutes that.>>

Refuting the existence of one belief doesn't make all of them wrong. Trust me, I'm as atheist as they come, but I'm not about to say that I know everyone else is wrong and only I can possibly be right.

[Elementz]

Then you are NOT as atheist as they come and you seem to be more closely related to an agnostic. Otherwise you wouldn't have a doubt in what others "believe".
Again this all comes back to semantics and terminology which is what gets my goat in the first place. I'm not gonna bust out the dictionary again, but if you think someone out there could be right about their belief in the existence of god, you are not by any means, truly atheist.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Then you are NOT as atheist as they come and you seem to be more closely related to an agnostic. Otherwise you wouldn't have a doubt in what others "believe".>>

I can be 9999999% atheist and still not throw it in someone else's face that I'm righter than they are. Just because I'm not the most outwardly verbal about it doesn't make me any less convinced that there ain't no gods.

<<Again this all comes back to semantics and terminology which is what gets my goat in the first place. I'm not gonna bust out the dictionary again, but if you think someone out there could be right about their belief in the existence of god, you are not by any means, truly atheist.>>

Your assertion (that someone must never doubt the credentials of atheists everywhere!!!11) suggests what you most readily deny: you're treating atheism as a religion by trying to judge "how atheist" I am, or how devout I am in my disbelief. I don't think anyone is right in any belief of a god, but I also acknowledge that other people have religious beliefs. It's not my place nor my duty to educate them on why religion sucks.

Moreover, it's interesting that you know there is no god, and that it's blasphemous to entertain the possibility of one, when you attribute such knowledge to more or less the scientific process. It is in a scientist's nature to try to find the truth and always be open to new possibilities, whether or not they challenge longstanding ideals.

[Elementz]

<<<I can be 9999999% atheist and still not throw it in someone else's face that I'm righter than they are.>>>

I seriously don't want to whip out multiple dictionaries. If you are not 100% as denoted by the A(n) prefix to the word (A)Theist, then you are agnostic. Atheism is a 100% refute. There is no 9999999% in atheism. You are either 100% or you are not. If you are not 100% then you are agnostic or a mono/polytheist/spiritualist.

<<<Your assertion (that someone must never doubt the credentials of atheists everywhere!!!11) suggests what you most readily deny: you're treating atheism as a religion by trying to judge "how atheist" I am, or how devout I am in my disbelief. >>>

Ok fuck it, I'm busting out the dictionary again, because you obviously have a misconception of the English language.

(de&#183;vout (d-vout)
adj. de&#183;vout&#183;er, de&#183;vout&#183;est
1. Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations.)

You cannot be devout in a *disbelief*. You can only be devout in a belief. If you are devout in a belief, you affirm that your opinion/belief is correct. I do not *believe* in things. I accept proven facts as they are proven. I am not devout in my facts. You cannot be devout in a fact.

<<<Moreover, it's interesting that you know there is no god, and that it's blasphemous to entertain the possibility of one, when you attribute such knowledge to more or less the scientific process. It is in a scientist's nature to try to find the truth and always be open to new possibilities, whether or not they challenge longstanding ideals.>>>

Again, just because scientists are open to new possibilities doesn't mean they have to believe conjecture and hearsay. The scientific method, which SCIENTISTS follow, involves PROVING a theory beyond a reasonable doubt through REPEATABLE experiments. Therefore, just because scientists are open to new possibilities, doesn't mean they have to be agnostic and open to the idea of god. They are open to the idea of PROVABLE hypothesis.

Also I never said it was blasphemous to entertain the idea of a god. I'm not an atheist activist. I have my knowledge and other people are entitled to their beliefs. We live in a free society.

I am a proponent of the freedom of religion. I want everyone to come up with their own ideas and their own theories. I am simply arguing the semantics and terminology in this particular argument.



-Peace

[Elementz]

::whispers:: By the way...short of cutting and pasting I haven't gotten the hang of quoting, so don't file a lawsuit please, kthx.

-Peace

[Warriorbird]

According to PC: Theology

Anybody who argues:


I am simply arguing the semantics and terminology in this particular argument.

immediately = Latrinsorm

thus ceasing to be of value to argue with in a religious context.

Just to clarify for you.

[Bobmuhthol]

Do you understand that the number 9999999 is bigger than the number 100? As in, I am 99999.99 times as atheist than a complete atheist?

Also note that my use of the word devout is correct in context. There is no proven fact in the inexistence of god, else religion would not exist. It's amazing how a single person (you) could somehow have divine knowledge that no one else (everyone that isn't you, including people who are way more qualified to make such claims, and even they don't) has.

What you're saying regarding the scientific method is that given irrefutable proof of the existence of a god, you still wouldn't believe it, because you know there isn't a god. Because you're not agnostic. However, it doesn't take an agnostic person to be convinced that there is a god given all the required proof; it just takes a person. You don't set the standard for atheists: not everyone is going to vehemently deny that there is a god to the extent that you do, and that doesn't make them less atheist.

[Elementz]

If that post made any less sense I'd make a longer reply, however I think I've proven my point regarding the semantics and terminology beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, you're not getting my point regarding 99999999% properly. I should have been more specific, my apologies. I was basing my comment on the fact that you said you agree, although Greek mythology turned out to be a bunch of bullshit, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world is wrong in their various beliefs. Therefore you Sir, are Agnostic, and you should revise your 9999999% to reflect a 99.9%.

-Peace, night all :D Have fun with the numerous posts that will follow. I've made my case in a very logical fashion and I'm satisfied that I am finished. For now.

[Elementz]

By the way, as of this post I'm at 17 posts! I'm on my way to being 1337 on the internet!

[Bobmuhthol]

It doesn't make me agnostic to say a god could exist. I still disbelieve in any god (lol, not believe there is no god, 'cause that's just dumb to say!). It just makes me open to anything. Subscribing to any belief or disbelief is inherently closed-minded -- being Christian forces you to believe in Christ and no one else, for example. Being atheist and being open-minded are not mutually exclusive properties. I also have the proof to support my claim: I exist; and in this respect I *know* that I'm right.

[Elementz]

Your comments prove my point, you are agnostic. If you were atheist you would refute 100% the possibility of a god. You cannot be atheist and say, yeah there might be a possibility of a god. That is the definition of being agnostic. Do you not like being called agnostic? What do you have against being agnostic? You are agnostic, don't deny yourself.

[Bobmuhthol]

We apparently have very different ideas of what it means to be agnostic and atheist. I don't need you to tell me what I do or do not believe or disbelieve, certainly. Our different definitions seem to be the only thing in the way of making sense to each other (I'm leaning toward your definition of atheism being more like the definition of stubborn).

[Elementz]

My various dictionaries are getting beer stains on them. If you can't figure out by now that atheism is an absolute denial of the existence of god and agnostic is saying "I don't believe in god, but thats not to say maybe someone out there is right and there is a god", then you my friend are being stubborn. You can't deny the meaning of a word. You either have the definition correct or you have it wrong.

Dog
–noun
1. a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties.

Cat
-noun
1. a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties.
2. any of several carnivores of the family Felidae, as the lion, tiger, leopard or jaguar, etc.

Human
-noun
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Atheist
-noun
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic
-noun
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Stubborn
-adjective
1.) Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded.
2.) Obstinate, or unwilling to yield, obey etc.

-Peace

[Parkbandit]

It doesn't make me agnostic to say a god could exist. I still disbelieve in any god (lol, not believe there is no god, 'cause that's just dumb to say!). It just makes me open to anything. Subscribing to any belief or disbelief is inherently closed-minded -- being Christian forces you to believe in Christ and no one else, for example. Being atheist and being open-minded are not mutually exclusive properties. I also have the proof to support my claim: I exist; and in this respect I *know* that I'm right.

Actually, by definition, it does make you agnostic. I guess I'm in the same boat as you. I'm 100% convinced that there is no alien being that created everything here and now watches over us, making decisions every second on who lives and who dies. I'm just not willing to shove it into anyone's face.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Actually, by definition, it does make you agnostic.>>

Speaking in theoretical terms is much different from reality. My point is that I would believe in a god if it was proven that a god exists because it would be dumb to deny the truth. I'll never say "No one can convince me of xxx because I KNOW I'm right!!" because anything can be proven or disproven at any time.

If being an atheist means you have to continue not believing in a god after witnessing direct proof of a god, then maybe I don't want to be atheist. But no one would be that stubborn.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

<<Actually, by definition, it does make you agnostic.>>

Speaking in theoretical terms is much different from reality. My point is that I would believe in a god if it was proven that a god exists because it would be dumb to deny the truth. I'll never say "No one can convince me of xxx because I KNOW I'm right!!" because anything can be proven or disproven at any time.

If being an atheist means you have to continue not believing in a god after witnessing direct proof of a god, then maybe I don't want to be atheist. But no one would be that stubborn.

So pretty much Bob, you want to be all deep, dark, and atheist, but you're too much of a pussy to dive in head first? Kudos to you, you agnostic fuck.

Edit: Note, tone doesn't translate well. This was meant to be of the silly variety.

[Bobmuhthol]

I :lol:ed.

[Stanley Burrell]

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

-Peace

O.K.

I hate the fact that Atheist doesn't include supernatural deities, forces, and just about anything Tooth Fairy that isn't defined by thermodynamics.

I mean, it is, in my mind. The dictionary references are too sugar-coated when it comes to anything (a)theism. Bah. Hum. Fucking. Bug.

I shouldn't have to wait until I'm a graduate student to take a religion class in order to just begin skirting around religious discussion-a-phobia. And I don't have jack-fucking-shit to mention about it, either. I just hate the over-political correctness when it comes to this.

People who say you're not an Atheist because you pray to <insert deity> on your deathbed are correct. But you are when you're not. Because of Jean Paul Sartre.

In general, organized religion can suck an existential dick. Why do we do this to ourselves?

[Elementz]

Theism's definition inherently has to do with the belief in a god and or gods. We aren't talking about Wiccan tree spirits here. Calm down! Just talking about atheism and agnosticism. You can't change the scope of a word's definition, but you feel free to post other words that include your point of view! Maybe you can start a whole new argument between us, even though you just want to flame and not discuss rationally!

-Peace

[Stanley Burrell]

Well, it's not a-mono-theism, still, it's a sketchy line. I don't feel there is any sort of cage The Atheist is placed in whereas he concedes in disbelief of only the Judeo-Christian God.

Some way, or another, the less mainstream religiously inclined have been referred to as anti-Christs, heretics, witches and warlocks for quite some time. The root of the word should not even determine its starting point, chronologically.

[Elementz]

<<Actually, by definition, it does make you agnostic.>>

Speaking in theoretical terms is much different from reality. My point is that I would believe in a god if it was proven that a god exists because it would be dumb to deny the truth. I'll never say "No one can convince me of xxx because I KNOW I'm right!!" because anything can be proven or disproven at any time.

If being an atheist means you have to continue not believing in a god after witnessing direct proof of a god, then maybe I don't want to be atheist. But no one would be that stubborn.

Is this ENTIRE post theoretical? Because agnosticism is completely based in theory. I'm saying as an atheist, I 100% deny that I will ever see a direct act of god. If Jesus were to POOF in front of me, my first reaction would be...I finally drank too much and did too many drugs. Great my brain is broken.

If you are saying that with the right divinely intervening miracle you would stop denying the existence of god, then I stand by my claim that you are agnostic. Unless of course this is all theoretical in which case....you're still agnostic....


So pretty much Bob, you want to be all deep, dark, and atheist, but you're too much of a pussy to dive in head first? Kudos to you, you agnostic fuck.

Edit: Note, tone doesn't translate well. This was meant to be of the silly variety.

Silly, but somehow fits snugly into the conversation.

Edit: Please see my previous post about the definitions of stubborn and atheist. Your comment made me puke a little in the back of my mouth. Thats like saying if you don't believe in Christ or Allah you're going to hell, you stubborn non-believers!

[Latrinsorm]

To me it is factual. Just as we can observe the sun and know for a fact it exists, I can't observe god or postulate an experiment to prove his existence. It requires blind faith on a belief.For someone who's so interested in loudly decrying other peoples' definitions, you have a very tenuous grasp on what it really means to "know" and what it means to "prove" something.
Zeus and the other gods back when were created to explain things they didn't understand at that time.You're suffering from a misunderstanding that plagued many of the scientific minds of the 18th through the early 20th centuries, which led many of them to declare that religion would soon be phased out as scientific advancement continued. Factually speaking, however, religion did not originate as some sort of proto-science and as such is not in conflict with an experimentalist perspective. Invoking the God of gaps is at best a medieval accretion and even then usually only in folk religion.
Its not unusual to be prejudice against people who have different points of view. Who am I? Do you know my credentials? Do you know what research I've done?You and I have spoken at great length before on matters of science. (That you don't know who I am is an amusing bit of irony, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.) It is not a matter of prejudice; it is objectively verifiable that you're just misinformed (for evidence of this claim, see the rest of this post). That your only defense is to invoke the authority of a book and call my character into question would lead me to believe that you were engaging in an elaborate and subtle parody, but I think you would have made less mistakes if that were the case.
If you were atheist you would refute 100% the possibility of a god.Atheism does not say that God cannot possibly exist, only that God does not happen to exist in this particular universe. For your future benefit in semantical wrangling, this is the difference between an apodeictic and assertoric statement.

There are strains of atheism that are as dogmatic as you'd like them to be, and though you strenuously believe otherwise these are the strains of atheism that are in fact religious systems of belief.

[Warriorbird]

Hakwea needs to join this discussion. Badly. Then we can bomb it.

[Elementz]

Latrinsorm,

Actually a lot of cultures used religion as a science. Native Americans, Greeks, and Eastern/Asian cultures. If you're still going off Durkheim its getting old.

Also, there are no "strains" of atheism. You're either atheist or you're not. Its not religion. There is no dogma in atheism. There are no two ways around, no sects.

-Peace

[Elementz]

Atheism does not say that God cannot possibly exist, only that God does not happen to exist in this particular universe. For your future benefit in semantical wrangling, this is the difference between an apodeictic and assertoric statement.


By the way, if you wanna get dirty about it; saying its the difference between an apodeictic and assertoric statement pretty much sums up my argument with atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is problematic. Atheism is self evident.

-Peace

P.S. Atheism does not "say" anything. Religions and beliefs "say" things. Atheism is the disbelief in any god or higher power whatsoever. End of story. There is no, "well maybe in another universe or dimension God(s) exist". Atheism has nothing to do with God(s) existing in parallel universes. If you believe that God(s) may exist or, could possibly exist in a parallel universe you are not atheist, you are agnostic. Similarly if you actually believe in God(s) in our or a parallel universe you are monotheistic or polytheistic respectively.

You're pulling philosophy and rhetoric out of obscure sources and creating your own definition of a word. My "semantical wrangling" is purely based in fact, for your future benefit.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually a lot of cultures used religion as a science. Native Americans, Greeks, and Eastern/Asian cultures.Of course they did. What you said was that religion was created as a scientific endeavor, which is incorrect. I can use a screwdriver as a hammer, that doesn't mean the guy who built the screwdriver designed a (fairly sucky) hammer.
There is no dogma in atheism.Of course there is. If someone says "no one will ever convince me otherwise of X belief", they are holding X as dogma - a principle beyond argument, beyond consideration. That not all atheists fall into this camp pretty clearly defines multiple versions of atheism. I can just as easily make the tautological statement that "you're either Christian or you're not", but that in no way implies there is only one version of Christianity.
If you believe that God(s) may exist or, could possibly exist in a parallel universe you are not atheist, you are agnostic.Not really what I was talking about, no. I hope you see the humor here, because you're reading into "possibly" something different than what I'm stating. You're reading it as a statement of unknowns, which would clearly be agnosticism. What I described was a statement of contingency - God could have existed if certain unspecified objects or events were different in some way.

Put another way, your atheism requires the belief that God is logically impossible in some way, that God could not possibly exist (apodeictic). Other atheisms could merely say that God does not exist (assertoric) and leave it at that. Saying "Atheism is the disbelief in any god or higher power whatsoever." is not actually the end of the story.

[Elementz]

I was just waiting for this thread to calm down...

You're still wrong! HARRRRRRRRR!

[Numbers]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9165/fleshofchristiv2.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9165/fleshofchristiv2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie

And that is why you had to kill them all in GTA:Vice City

[Gan]

Thats awesome.

[Audriana]

Holy necro-bump batman.

I went to a Christian private school until middle school. I was basically asked to leave when I started questioning the idea of, "We're going to learn about Algebra today, everybody take out your bibles and turn to page..."

The problem for me is that there's just so many religions out there. Which one is correct? Do any of them really have it right? However, If I could just choose one to be true, I'd probably choose Buddhism. I like that whole idea; Karma, rebirth, etc.

I don't like the entire idea of 'forever'. As a species that lives for 75 years, any religion that lets you go somewhere 'forever' I have a big question with. Any human cannot fathom 'forever' or 'infinite'. There's just no way, we have no frame of reference. Anybody that wants to live forever, is just afraid of death (which is to say, they're afraid of the unknown).

I also am fairly agnostic. Not only can there never be proof of any religion, even if there were proof, there just is no human ability to sense or understand it. Just as an Ant just doesn't have the senses or brainpower to fathom a human, humans don't have the senses to fathom God or any creator.


There can be no proof of any new testament-based religion, because the whole basis of religion is that God requires faith. Faith is not the belief in fact. Once there is a fact that God exists, he doesn't (HHGTTG LOL).


I hope I'm wrong. I hope that when I die something happens. But I'd be lying to myself if I didn't at least acknowledge my feeling that death is going to be a lot like the way the world existed before I was born. Nothing.

[Ashliana]

Both my parents had religion forced upon them and decided they weren't going to do the same thing to me--for which I am eternally grateful. I'm agnostic.

Seems to me that most religious beliefs revolve around taking people's word at face value. Christianity, the most prominent example I'm familiar with.. If I talk to an average person I know that's Christian, they'll give me their beliefs, but know very little of the history they're based on. That's fine--not every person is a theologian or Biblical scholar. But a lot of their beliefs boil down to "I heard it from my pastor/priest/etc at church," "I heard it from my parents" or "I read it in the Bible."

In those cases, as any educated and critical person should do, I ask questions. Where did you get this information? What's your source? Is it objective? Is it factual--based on evidence? What's the evidence? Are there multiple, objective sources with evidence?

You just follow the trail back and it gets more and more shaky the further you back you go. We didn't keep good records, our knowledge of science and empirical observation was extremely limited, and people were profoundly more superstitious and gullible the further and further you go back. Given how suggestive children are, I think it'd be safe to say that a lot of religious belief is based around how malleable children are and how authoritative a church seems to be when you're young.

As an educated, critically thinking adult--I've just never seen any evidence that would make me believe in any religion. A lot of people try to circumvent this by simply saying "Oh, well you don't have faith. You need to believe." Believe what? Have faith in what? Something there's no evidence for? So why would I need faith--how do you know you're not arbitrarily picking some random element to "have faith in?" Essentially, it boils down to "having faith in what other people profess to believe in." It's just groupthink at its worst.

I'm agnostic, but I sincerely wish and hope there's a God/gods. I most surely desire an afterlife, and justice and meaning for my existence. My rational brain tells me that that is either unlikely, or I'm simply not in a position, as a mortal being with limited knowledge, to know the answer.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9165/fleshofchristiv2.jpg

The epitome of "made of win".

[ElanthianSiren]

lol awesome.

"No religion's nailed it because they're all to self-righteous to accept it isn't what you have faith in, just that you have faith."

Selma Hayek(sp) I believe in Dogma. I'm paraphrasing, but that pretty much fits me. I ran away from catholicism like a bitch with a skinned knee when I got to hear how evil women were in CCD class repeatedly.

[Audriana]

In the spirit of the OP, I agree with your side, Jenisi. Atheists just seem bitter to me. They're just as bad as the super-religious.

Just as there's no proof God exists other than the Bible, there's no proof He doesn't exist either. How can you be so absolutely sure about the non-existence of something? Unfortunately you can't. So Atheism in general just seems like a group of those 15 year old brats constantly telling you you're wrong, and not wanting to hear anything to the contrary.


To me, Atheism is 'anything that I can't prove exists, doesn't'
and Agnosticism is 'anything that I can't prove exists, might'

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

On topic, even though this has been bumped, I've always felt the most proof and reason was for being agnostic.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being something other than agnostic. However, having faith means you need to understand what faith is-- you give up reasoning and scientific fact to explain what said reasoning and scientific fact doesn't explain. I have faith in a few things, but if proof does come out that makes my faith null and void, then I will have to re-evaluate my faith and see where I end up again. There's no shame in being religious or spiritual, IMO, but there is in being willfully ignorant to justify yourself.

[Elementz]

In the spirit of the OP, I agree with your side, Jenisi. Atheists just seem bitter to me. They're just as bad as the super-religious.

Just as there's no proof God exists other than the Bible, there's no proof He doesn't exist either.

To me, Atheism is 'anything that I can't prove exists, doesn't'
and Agnosticism is 'anything that I can't prove exists, might'

The bible isn't proof that god exists it is a book written by man, man is fallable, so is the "word of god" man wrote. I'm not bitter, I'm just realistic.

Also, if you can't prove it exists, guess what... ***THAT MEANS IT DOESN'T***. STOP TRYING TO BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS!! 1+1 = 2 2+2 = 4 *** ZERO PLUS ZERO EQUALS ZERO ***

Har.

[Elementz]

So all christians are saying that their MAN MADE bible is more accurate and correct about their deity than Hindu's text, or Muslin text, or Jeudaism's? They're all man made and they ALL say a different story.

So, you're actually wrong, according to you there should be evidence for god not in just the bible but in all of these religions books, and the countless other books that have been published claming THEY HAVE THE EVIDENCE AND HISTORICAL RECORD OF GOD.

Its all the same. None of you are ever going to be right or win this argument if you keep usin weak ass arguments like this.

Latristrom actually brought something to the table. No offense but he did, I won't accept arguments based on "THE BIBLE" If you aren't going to cite other examples to support your claim and cite one source, I'm not going to take you seriously.

If you went to University handed in your dissertation with a bibliography that had nothing but Wikipedia sources cited..

Guess what that would be?

AN EPIC FAILURE, LOL BRIELUS!!1

[Daniel]

I don't understand the intense desire to justify your own personal faith.

[Elementz]

Based on my previous post, and the other posts on this thread, my security in my knowledge and my willingness to think the world is an ignorant place, has only been solidified.

Religious people say that atheists can't SAY they KNOW. Guess what, I'll say whatever the fuck I want if no one can give me a good reason not to just believe myself and not listen to 6.5 billion people who are full of shit.

I'm not agnostic. I never have claimed to be. Agnostics just can't bring their hearts to fully accept that we are living in a godless, heanveless, hell-less universe.

How about instead of focusing on religion and having wars fought and lame ass arguments on the internet you take that frustration and instead of patronizing and ostricizing an atheist individual who isn't a part of a cause to spread his view other than arguing on a thread (aka I'm not in church, I'm not a jehova's witness), why don't you go out and fucking try to make the world
a better place and maybe there'd be more of a reason to think god exists besides science.

I'm right. I know this. Argue all you want! Its fun. I enjoy it, but please try to cite more... relevent and well thought out examples.

[Elementz]

I don't understand the intense desire to justify your own personal faith.


I don't defend ignorance and I won't have it put it my face and told that I don't know what I know, thats all. Just because other people don't know or can't bring themselves to know, doesn't mean I have to submit to grey areas. This is not a grey area. It is very cut and dry to me and there is no argument on my side, if other people want to continue arguing I'll be happy to point them in the direction of truth, logic, and science.

Until someone can prove otherwise, if someone starts a thread about a private argument I had with them, I'm going to continue the thread until its exhausted. I don't lay down, whether its religion, work, education, relationships, as much as the world would like me to so they don't have to face the truth.

[Jenisi]

<- Still agnostic

I also recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

I'll put up some quotes I like from that book in here later.

[Jenisi]

PS ... ELE MY LAPTOP R TEH BROKE LOL BRIELUS

[Daniel]

You don't know either way. So, why be so aggressive about asserting something you can't possibly know? If you have a strong conviction fine. You don't need to throw it around like you have something to prove. If you feel someone is ignorant is fine. Why do you feel the need to come in between them and what is a very personal matter?

[Elementz]

My point is, if someone is going to tell me I don't know, I'm going to tell you I do know, and you don't know. There is no winner if thats how its going to be approached, so I will always approach it intellectually (maybe throw some humor in) and if someone wants to step up to the plate like Jenisi and Latristrom then I'm game, otherwise, keep your mouth shut and don't tell me I don't know what I know.

If I can out argue someone with one sentence after they diarrhea
a bullshit argument with horrible examples, on a topic as deeply rooted as their OWN PERSONAL FAITH, they obviously haven't put as much thought into this as I have and I do not respect their OPINION and I will stick with my KNOWLEDGE.

I used to believe in god. When I was a kid. Then I grew up.

[Daniel]

Well, hey. If you want to be juvenile about it...by all means.

The fact of the matter is you don't know any moreso than anybody else in this world. There is something to be said for silent conviction. Someone who does know something, or at least thinks they do, doesn't need to go around proving their point or shouting down another person to do so. It's simply you know or you don't.

[Elementz]

PS ... ELE MY LAPTOP R TEH BROKE LOL BRIELUS <--- lol brielus :<

I'll help you! Call me! <333 :D I'll check that book out, thanks for the recommendation. You know me, I always love to hear a well thought out argument even if I don't agree with it.

[Elementz]

Well, hey. If you want to be juvenile about it...by all means.

The fact of the matter is you don't know any moreso than anybody else in this world. There is something to be said for silent conviction. Someone who does know something, or at least thinks they do, doesn't need to go around proving their point or shouting down another person to do so. It's simply you know or you don't.

Dude, you obviously haven't read a single thing I've said. If you keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and so I should be open to everyone elses OPINIONs, and you're NOT GOING TO CITE ANY EXAMPLES, AND NOW I'M SHOUTING, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET OFF THE THREAD. This is my final response to this particular issue, you've repeated yourself every post and I've put some very well thought out arguments for you to discuss.

If you're going to get hung up on what *I* know, maybe you should figure out what YOU know. We're not all ignorant assholes who have to rely on society for spiritual and mental wellbeing. I know I'm right :) I know you're wrong and so far you're proving to be a redundant idiot.

Lol brielus 2 u sir, lol brielus 2 u

[Audriana]

The bible isn't proof that god exists it is a book written by man, man is fallable, so is the "word of god" man wrote. I'm not bitter, I'm just realistic.

Also, if you can't prove it exists, guess what... ***THAT MEANS IT DOESN'T***. STOP TRYING TO BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS!! 1+1 = 2 2+2 = 4 *** ZERO PLUS ZERO EQUALS ZERO ***

Har.


3 things.

A) Does that scare you? That when you die, you cease to be?

B) There's well documented evidence that there's a part of the human brain responsible for religious thoughts. When people get seizures in these parts of the brain they experience extreme feelings of oneness with God and extreme religious feelings.
Now this could have evolved as a defense mechanism, that as we got smarter and self-aware we became aware of our own deaths and to prevent us from just going fucking nuts.
Or maybe it's a transmitter/receiver specifically placed by God.

There are a lot of 'iffy' things like this that could just exist that way by chance, or is evidence of the existance of a creator. None of them can be proved or disproved.

C) Your Santa Clause argument is flawed, as is your math argument.

Santa Clause is said to live in the north pole and delivers presents to every child on the planet in one night. There are several things wrong with that including speed, the fact we've been to the north pole and there's nothing there, and the best one of all; if somebody doesn't buy any presents one year, kids get no presents. - So there's evidence of the non-existance of Santa Clause.

Your math argument of 0 + 0 = 0 is flawed.
In your argument, you're not saying 0 + 0 = 0, or even 0=0. You're saying ?=0. And I'm saying ?=?

[Daniel]

Maybe you have problems reading. I never said you should be open to other people's opinions. I said I don't understand the intense desire to justify your own personal belief. If you believe it, believe it. No need to get into petty arguments about who is right or who isn't.

When I say "you" don't know more than anything else, I am in effect saying that "I" don't know more than you or anybody else for that matter. It's a personal belief, and what others belief have (or at least shouldn't) have any baring on what it is you or I personally believe.

For your information, I'm not a religious person at all. I haven't even alluded to what I personally believe and the fact that you would jump to that conclusion says more about your insecurity than anything else. You need to take a breath and attempt to understand why someone would be saying something instead of perceiving it as an attack.

I have absolutely no desire to argue with you or anybody else concerning my own personal beliefs in life. If you want to hear what I think out of curiousity, fine. However, I have better ways to waste my time than trying to convince someone that I am right. The only way you or I will ever know for certain is when we die and we are confronted with whatever reality there is. Until then, I'm going to live my life the best way I can and hopefully you'll do the same.

[Elementz]

3 things.

A) Does that scare you? That when you die, you cease to be?

Nope. It sure doesn't. I had a problem accepting it at first for many years when I no longer believed in a higher power or plane, however now? No. I live every day like its my last most important day so when I die I'll know I had heaven on earth. I feel bad for all the fuckers out there PISSING their life away waiting to get into a heaven that doesn't exist ;)

B) There's well documented evidence that there's a part of the human brain responsible for religious thoughts. When people get seizures in these parts of the brain they experience extreme feelings of oneness with God and extreme religious feelings.
Now this could have evolved as a defense mechanism, that as we got smarter and self-aware we became aware of our own deaths and to prevent us from just going fucking nuts.
Or maybe it's a transmitter/receiver specifically placed by God.

Show me some documentation on this because your brains have various lobes that interact with every other portion of your brain, involving your consciousness, subconsciousness, audio and visual skills etc etc. I refuse to believe there was any study on this that involved more than someone speculating.

Its called a hallucination. Everyone has hallucinations, even minor ones. You can have a hallucination from a high fever. Its the same exact area of the brain tricking you that you think is a god reciever. This is a pretty dismal argument. I can go eat shrooms and feel oneness with god. Does that mean shrooms are a portal to god? Some people think so. I think those people are fucking idiots.

There are a lot of 'iffy' things like this that could just exist that way by chance, or is evidence of the existance of a creator. None of them can be proved or disproved.

Sure they can. If you can't prove them you can do YOUR VERY BEST to theorize using ideas WE KNOW TO BE TRUE. Then we can paint a pretty good fucking picture.

Example: Park your car on concrete for 5 days. Move it. You will have a stain. Someone walks by and sees the stain. The car is no longer there. The stain is. We know the car probably made the stain. Thats called DEDUCTION and its how you figure out things you don't know. I deduced the universe down to science and I *know* there is no god. Just people having hallucinations and living off their parent/societal/peer belief systems.

You're trying to tell me, that I have a fresh stain on my concrete out front of my house when I've never parked a car there in my life. The car was never there. There's no stain. I dont' believe you. If I went to check, there'd be no stain. Had I even parked my car there once, I wouldn't argue, I'd say OMG thank you for pointing that out, I'll go clean it up.
C) Your Santa Clause argument is flawed, as is your math argument.

Santa Clause is said to live in the north pole and delivers presents to every child on the planet in one night. There are several things wrong with that including speed, the fact we've been to the north pole and there's nothing there, and the best one of all; if somebody doesn't buy any presents one year, kids get no presents. - So there's evidence of the non-existance of Santa Clause.

HOLY SHIT DID YOU HEAR WHAT YOU JUST SAID? A MAGICAL FLYING MAN CANNOT DELIVER PRESENTS TO EVERY KID IN THE WORLD BECAUSE ITS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE SO THERE'S YOUR PROOF. YEAH WELL GUESS WHAT, WHEN ANYONE PRAYS, I THINK ITS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY VOICE TO TRAVEL FAR ENOUGH FOR AN ENTITY TO HEAR IT.Your logic is flawed and you're trying to defend your God against Santa claus. If you believe in God then WHY pray tell, can't Santa Claus have been inejected with some god juice so he can fly around the world in 5 minutes, eat some cookies, chug some beer, fuck Mrs. Claus, and be home before David Letterman?
Your math argument of 0 + 0 = 0 is flawed.
In your argument, you're not saying 0 + 0 = 0, or even 0=0. You're saying ?=0. And I'm saying ?=?

No, its not an unknown equals an unknown

If you take away ONE YOU HAVE ZERO. THAT IS KNOWN. ITS NOT A QUESTION MARK, STOP MAKING UP SCIENCE. Take away One you have Zero. Which is nothing. Add Zero Plus Zero Which is NOTHING PLUS NOTHING AND YOU GET NOTHING. ? = ? assumes you can eventually ? + ? = ?, which you don't want to do. You just want ? = God

Good day. Do more research. You're so skewed. I was with you until that Santa Claus thing, you just totally shot your credibility down for a religious argument after spewing that out.

[Elementz]

Maybe you have problems reading. I never said you should be open to other people's opinions. I said I don't understand the intense desire to justify your own personal belief. If you believe it, believe it. No need to get into petty arguments about who is right or who isn't.

When I say "you" don't know more than anything else, I am in effect saying that "I" don't know more than you or anybody else for that matter. It's a personal belief, and what others belief have (or at least shouldn't) have any baring on what it is you or I personally believe.

For your information, I'm not a religious person at all. I haven't even alluded to what I personally believe and the fact that you would jump to that conclusion says more about your insecurity than anything else. You need to take a breath and attempt to understand why someone would be saying something instead of perceiving it as an attack.

I have absolutely no desire to argue with you or anybody else concerning my own personal beliefs in life. If you want to hear what I think out of curiousity, fine. However, I have better ways to waste my time than trying to convince someone that I am right. The only way you or I will ever know for certain is when we die and we are confronted with whatever reality there is. Until then, I'm going to live my life the best way I can and hopefully you'll do the same.


My point is, if we're going to have a thread on this and people are going to try to have discussions, I'm going to say what I *KNOW*. You can all feel free to say what you think, but until someone can prove otherwise I'm going to say what I *know* and I"m NOT going to give up and stop defending myself and say that I DON'T know what I know... And we both know, no one is going to prove that to me. So, why not stop trying to convince me I don't know what I'm talking about and try to convince me of something that you're telling me you guys know more about (not aimed at you directly Daniel just in general)

The reason this thread was started was a private conversation I was having and it turned into a thread, so I'm not going to stop discussing the issue unless other people want to stop as well.

I wasn't claiming anything about your beliefs, I'm saying I know what I know and you know what you know. I just happen to know that there's no god. If thats just me thats fine, no one else has to know that. I'm happy keeping this truth to myself if its too scary for people to talk about without getting mad and saying "You can't know that omg please dont' say you know that cause you can't no one can CAUSE I DON'T.."

Thats not my problem if someone is agnostic and can't bring themself to a final answer. Thats theirs. Its not my problem if someone believes in a god and religion. Thats their problem. Just because they can't come to a determination of knowledge doesn't mean I'm not able to. I know what *I'M* talking about.

I apologize for caps locking you. Wanna sing Kumbaya?

[Khariz]

Because there are people on both sides who feel the need to 1) not have anything in common with and 2) be superior to the other side. Thus, if one side says "I have faith in [tenet]", the aforementioned members of the other side would say "faith is stupid, I KNOW [tenet] is wrong". This renders them literally incapable of recognizing that their claim is equally based in dogma and faith.

Best paragraph of the entire thread. I try to explain this to people all the time, but they just don't get it.

[Elementz]

Best paragraph of the entire thread. I try to explain this to people all the time, but they just don't get it.

I refuse to say that I have the same type of faith that people associate with religion nor do I believe in dogma I accept facts and theory based on fact as the evidence comes in.

If I'm aggressive toward someone when talking about religion it is strictly because I've tried and tried to have a reasonable discussion with people in the past and there is no reason on the opposite side of the common atheist's argument.

If the argument is going to be that I can't *know* what I know and thats why I should accept that there is a high power or the *possibility* of one, then I'm going to tell you to fuck off all day and night until you shut the fuck up about what I know and start trying to prove a reasonable case.

My faith in my life is not blind. Religious faith is blind. I have faith in my friends, myself, my family, and the people/places/things that have proven they are worth my faith, when I need to give it to them. I'll trust and give faith when its deserved.

I do NOT give blind faith nor do I believe in dogma nor is my stance a part of any religious cult, group, or anything. Nor am I overly secular, I could give two shits less about separation of church and state for most issues, except when it influences decisions and judgements. Go ahead and put the ten commandments out front and give people the options of swearing on a bible.

I also have to right to swear on any other object I want to swear to. I don't have to swear to a bible. I could swear to a fucking DVD porno if I brought one in.

Don't EVER tell me that I don't know what *I* am talking about if you're trying to have a two way conversation, because thats closing the door in my face right there and I WILL kick it back open in yours.

I agree with that quote on some level, but its putting to much blame on people like me who just want you to shut the fuck up about god and stop making up your own ideas about how God works. If you make up your own fucking story and try to tell me what you "think" religion and spirituality are, you'd better be a good friend of mine because frankly I *THINK* you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

I don't make shit up. Why should I have to feel bad for *knowing* something when the OTHER party are the ones who can't seem to get their story straight?

At least I'm honest to myself and I figured it out for myself. I don't say "Eh, oh well its up in the air, I'm just not gonna worry about it, and I'll make stupid bullshit up as I go along because I never sat down for more than 5 minutes at a time to ponder the meaning of humanity and the state of the universe".

I may not have belief in a higher power but I believe in myself and my convictions.

[g++]

I believe in whatever Brielus avatar is at any given time.

[Audriana]

HOLY SHIT DID YOU HEAR WHAT YOU JUST SAID? A MAGICAL FLYING MAN CANNOT DELIVER PRESENTS TO EVERY KID IN THE WORLD BECAUSE ITS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE SO THERE'S YOUR PROOF. YEAH WELL GUESS WHAT, WHEN ANYONE PRAYS, I THINK ITS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY VOICE TO TRAVEL FAR ENOUGH FOR AN ENTITY TO HEAR IT.Your logic is flawed and you're trying to defend your God against Santa claus. If you believe in God then WHY pray tell, can't Santa Claus have been injected with some god juice so he can fly around the world in 5 minutes, eat some cookies, chug some beer, fuck Mrs. Claus, and be home before David Letterman?If Santa were injected with the same juice that God is injected with, he sure could fly around the world in his 5 minutes. However, people don't get presents that are actually from Santa, so there's the proof of the non-existence of Santa.

With God there is no proof of non-existence.

What I'm saying is if there were a trial on the existence or non-existence of God, there would be evidence given on the side of existence, but the evidence of the non-existence is simply the lack of evidence.

I'm simply not willing to tell 83% of the planet that they're just delusional.
If you take away ONE YOU HAVE ZERO. THAT IS KNOWN. ITS NOT A QUESTION MARK, STOP MAKING UP SCIENCE. Take away One you have Zero. Which is nothing. Add Zero Plus Zero Which is NOTHING PLUS NOTHING AND YOU GET NOTHING. ? = ? assumes you can eventually ? + ? = ?, which you don't want to do.Again we disagree on the fundamental base issue. You believe that the lack of evidence is the same as proof of the non-existence. I see the lack of evidence the same as no proof of the non-existence.
You just want ? = GodThat's where you're wrong. I may hope ? = something, but I don't necessarily WANT it (mainly because if Catholics are correct, I'm going straight to hell).



On a side note: You are very passionate about your standings, I get that. I am debating you because I enjoy the debate and I like to get to understand your ideas. However, it's pretty tough to read when you're not using quote quite properly and you're a little over-enthusiastic.

Also, you only seem to be half-reading and coming into it with a preconceived notion of what you're going to read. May want a bit of further practice in debating. Just calm down a bit and really try to understand what the other person is saying, not what you're expecting them to say.

[Elementz]

I believe in whatever Brielus(lol) avatar is at any given time.

herehere! That zombie jesus one he had awhile back became my new Easter wall poster when all the family comes over for dinner! :D

[Elementz]

If Santa were injected with the same juice that God is injected with, he sure could fly around the world in his 5 minutes. However, people don't get presents that are actually from Santa, so there's the proof of the non-existance of Santa. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I can't believe you are really trying to take my joke about God juice and apply it in an argument about God. And people wonder why I don't take your ideology seriously, one iota.

With God there is no proof of non-existance. <-- This is a double negative and also fully retarded. I can spin shit all day so no one has a clue what I'm takling about and I look retarded too (lol brielus!!1). Please try harder... PLEASE I'm begging you, I swear I'm trying to be nice.

What I'm saying is if there were a trial on the existance or non-existance of God, there would be evidence given on the side of existance, but the evidence of the non-existance is simply the lack of evidence.

THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE ON THE SIDE OF GOD, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED BLIND FAITH. WOULD YOU PLEASE PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE FOR GOD IF YOU HAVE SOME, BECAUSE SO FAR THAT HAS BEEN AN EPIC, EPIC, EPIC, TRILOGY OF FAILURE. THE EVIDENCE **AGAINST** THE CASE OF GOD IS CALLED A FUCKING TELESCOPE. OH AND ASTRONOMY. OH AND PARTICLE PHYSICS. OH AND QUANTUM PHYSICS. OH JUST ABOUT EVERY THEORY ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE STARTED, BASED ON THOSE SCIENCES. MATH, PHYSICS, OBSERVATION, THEORIZING, AND PRODUCING ***REPEATABLE AND OBSERVABLE EXPERIMENTS**** IN SUPER COLLIDERS, PRODUCE **** MUCH MORE EVIDENCE**** THAN ANYONE ON THE SIDE OF GOD COULD PRODUCE.

HENCE THE ARGUMENT ALWAYS ENDS IN, "Oh well, just cause you can't prove it doesn't mean its not there" YES IT DOES. STOP BITCHING OUT OF THE FUCKING FIGHT. IF YOU BELIEVE IN AN ALMIGHTY SAVIOR WHO IS GOING TO GIVE YOU EVER LASTING LIFE BECAUSE YOU SERVE HIM OR WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU BELIEVE, YOU'RE DOING A HORRRRIBLE JOB. FIGHT FOR YOUR GOD AND STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR HIM.


I'm simply not willing to tell 83% of the planet that they're just delusional.Again we disagree on the fundimental base issue. You believe that the lack of evidence is the same as proof of the non-existance. I see the lack of evidence the same as no proof of the non-existance.That's where you're wrong. I may hope ? = something, but I don't necessarly WANT it (mainly because if Catholics are correct, I'm going straight to hell).

My mother was a roman catholic nun, I grew up in catholic school, half of my extended family converted to judaism (not immediate family). I have NO problem telling 90% of the world that they're just delusional. Because they are. If they have a problem with it, its not my fault. I'm obviously not the delusional one. YOU HAVE A MASS HYSTERIA OF SHARED DELUSION AND IT GETS WORSE THE CRAZIER THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON IS. LOOK AT GOD WARRIOR. CASE IN POINT.

On a side note: You are very passonate about your standings, I get that. I am debating you because I enjoy the debate and I like to get to understand your ideas. However, it's pretty tough to read when you're not using quote quite properly.

Also, you only seem to be half-reading and coming into it with a preconceived notion of what you're going to read. May want a bit of further practice in debating. Just calm down a bit and really try to understand what the other person is saying, not what you're expecting them to say.

I'm not expecing you to say anything but you keep saying you have evidence then you use my rhetorical joke about god juice and santa and try to pass it off as actual evidence. You don't have the right to use examples in this situation. Either you have evidence or you have blind faith. Pick your side and stop flip flopping your vote.

Sorry about the caps, uh my caps lock gets stuck when I talk about god.. spilled a bunch of God juice on my keyboard :\

[Kranar]

What I'm saying is if there were a trial on the existance or non-existance of God, there would be evidence given on the side of existance, but the evidence of the non-existance is simply the lack of evidence.

I'm simply not willing to tell 83% of the planet that they're just delusional.


Prove to me that Leprechauns don't exist. Prove to me that right now there isn't an exact replica of the Statue of Liberty on Pluto. Prove to me that some arbitrary and incredibly ridiculous idea isn't true.

The burden of proof is not on those who do not believe in the existence of God, it's on those who believe there is a God. I don't think it's merely a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of people believe in the religion they were told to believe in from a young age by their parents. That's not how rational people come to conclusions about what's real and what's not.

Religion is very effective at propagating itself for one reason. From a young age people are taught, in church, or by their parents or by their community that when it comes to that which we fear most and understand the least, that being death, if we do not come to accept God then will we burn in hell for all of eternity. When you're young and your presented with that, it makes it very difficult for you to question that belief in an objective and rational manner.

So when you say that 83% of the world probably isn't delusional, I say it has nothing to do with being delusional, it has to do with being too scared to question the one thing that was taught with absolute certainty. That by not believing, you will be damned.

It takes a very brave and critical person to break free from that kind of fear, and while there's no doubt that some people do break free, question the existence of God, question their religion, and come to a genuine conclusion that a God exists... it's no where close to 83% of people.

[Elementz]

3 things.

B) There's well documented evidence that there's a part of the human brain responsible for religious thoughts. When people get seizures in these parts of the brain they experience extreme feelings of oneness with God and extreme religious feelings.
Now this could have evolved as a defense mechanism, that as we got smarter and self-aware we became aware of our own deaths and to prevent us from just going fucking nuts.

Or maybe it's a transmitter/receiver specifically placed by God.



OH MY GOD YOU FUCKIN FIGURED OUT THE GOD WARRIOR'S PROBLEM... HER GOD TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER IS JACKED UP WAAAAY TOO HIGH ZOMG SOMEONE MUST WARN HER!!!!! QUICK! TO THE TARDMOBILE!

[g++]

The one thing I disagree with you on Kranar is the source of the fear. I dont believe people instill the fear of hell in each other. I think its the fear that there really is nothing after death and none of this matters that leads rational people to again and again turn to religion. I dont think its insidous I think a lot of people just have an inherent need to believe there is something more to life than and that this is not some elaborate pointless game. Luckily as gemstoners were just fine with that idea.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/quasimoto/raptorjesus-dr.jpg

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/raptorjesus-36752.jpg

Raptor Jesus, oh how I adore you!

[Audriana]

Prove to me that right now there isn't an exact replica of the Statue of Liberty on Pluto.This is actually a very good point. Especially if you change Pluto to a planet orbiting a star 50 lightyears away. We don't have the technology to disprove that.
The burden of proof is not on those who do not believe in the existence of God, it's on those who believe there is a God. I don't think it's merely a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of people believe in the religion they were told to believe in from a young age by their parents. That's not how rational people come to conclusions about what's real and what's not.True and false. Scientists don't look at something to be proved or disproved and say that everything is false until proven true. They look at everything as being unknown until proven true or false.
Religion is very effective at propagating itself for one reason. From a young age people are taught, in church, or by their parents or by their community that when it comes to that which we fear most and understand the least, that being death, if we do not come to accept God then will we burn in hell for all of eternity. When you're young and your presented with that, it makes it very difficult for you to question that belief in an objective and rational manner.Religion is very effective because people want to exist after they die, they don't want to think that everything they do means nothing
So when you say that 83% of the world probably isn't delusional, I say it has nothing to do with being delusional, it has to do with being too scared to question the one thing that was taught with absolute certainty. That by not believing, you will be damned.I didn't say that 83% of the world probably isn't delusional, I said that I'm not willing to tell 83% of the planet that they are delusional. I don't have the ability to know true or false.
It takes a very brave and critical person to break free from that kind of fear, and while there's no doubt that some people do break free, question the existence of God, question their religion, and come to a genuine conclusion that a God exists... it's no where close to 83% of people.

[Elementz]

The one thing I disagree with you on Kranar is the source of the fear. I dont believe people instill the fear of hell in each other. I think its the fear that there really is nothing after death and none of this matters that leads rational people to again and again turn to religion. I dont think its insidous I think a lot of people just have an inherent need to believe there is something more to life than and that this is not some elaborate pointless game. Luckily as gemstoners were just fine with that idea.

The specific fear of nothing after death is exactly why I *grew up* terrified of getting old and dying (not a random death, I could care less if I get shot in the face tomorrow). It was the inevitability. The obsession that I one day, will not be able to create conscious thought PERIOD. It will be like before I was born. Personally I kind of like being alive, I don't know about you guys. People who say, yeah I'll be ready to die when I'm an old man... I'll have lived long enough. Betcha none of them are atheist. There's no such thing as living long enough you jackasses. Stop advertising free presents to kids and a free eternal vaction to people. You're diluting our fucking society and we'll never move forward as a species or as a whole if we keep making bullshit up and ignoring the facts.

The KNOWLEDGE of nothing after death is specfically why I am NOT terrified of growing old and dying NOW that I know what I know. I compel myself forward through life not with thoughts of eternal paradise and whatever the fuck I want... all that does is set me up to fail and coast through life (using myself as an example, I know this doesn't apply to everybody), I compel myself by knowing THIS is Heaven.

WE LIVE IN HEAVEN SO MAKE THE BEST OF IT, CAUSE GUESS WHAT, IF I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE ALL FUCKED, HAVE A FUN RIDE, DIE TRYING, OR STFU.

I'll respond to the other post later. I'm having too much fun at the moment with other things to review that :)

Ah'll be bach

[Elementz]

GOD DAMN IT I READ ONE LINE AND I'M ALREADY LIKE WTF


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kranar
Prove to me that right now there isn't an exact replica of the Statue of Liberty on Pluto.

Quote:
Originally Postd by Audriana
This is actually a very good point. Especially if you change Pluto to a planet orbiting a star 50 lightyears away. We don't have the technology to disprove that.

NO THIS IS NOT A GOOD POINT, WE'VE SENT FUCKING LANDERS TO GOD DAMN PLUTO, IF THEY WANTED TO THEY *COULD* PROVE THIS, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS, FUCKING GOOGLE SOMETHING SOMETIME. YOU WONDER WHY I GET SO FUCKING PISSED?

STOP BEING STUPID AND AGREEING WITH STUPID PEOPLE AND SPREADING THE STUPIDITY. YOU'RE FUCKING THE WORLD UP.

*******THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE LANDER ON PLUTO*******

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4488/opptyareacbrthumbyz0.jpg

[Elementz]

:\ I guess I'll have to hit him up later. His cell phone's off.

Seen at a distance of 4.2 billion kilometers, NASA's New Horizons mission captured a glimpse of its final target Pluto late September.

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/8139/plutothumbps6.jpg

Its very low res, but they weren't trying to take pictures for a fucking art book. They were testing
the Red/blue shift to get an exact location and distance. If you watch the animation of this time lapsed
telescopy, you will see that Pluto shifts left to right between red/blue shift by about an inch.

That shift is how you measure the REAL distance. Get a clue. Its call research. Because of this image and the calculations they did, they were able to land a fucking man made object on Pluto to gather data. We send DEEP space orbiters out too. Don't even get me started on that. Oh, and we've crashed into asteroids too and recieved some of the most incredible video and stills ever, on top of the data we recieved... its mind blowing.

Go back to fucking school.

[Philosopher]

GOD DAMN IT I READ ONE LINE AND I'M ALREADY LIKE WTF . . .
NO THIS IS NOT A GOOD POINT, WE'VE SENT FUCKING LANDERS TO GOD DAMN PLUTO, IF THEY WANTED TO THEY *COULD* PROVE THIS, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS, FUCKING GOOGLE SOMETHING SOMETIME. YOU WONDER WHY I GET SO FUCKING PISSED?

STOP BEING STUPID AND AGREEING WITH STUPID PEOPLE AND SPREADING THE STUPIDITY. YOU'RE FUCKING THE WORLD UP.

*******THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE LANDER ON PLUTO*******

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4488/opptyareacbrthumbyz0.jpg
I'm willing to bet that Kranar had a different concern here and that your reply simply fails to address it. Notice, first, that he said, "Prove to me that right now there isn't an exact replica of the Statue of Liberty on Pluto." He asked for that proof at 9:31PM on 09/08/2008. When is that picture from? Presumably from some time before the time at which Kranar made his request. Second, even if it were to have been from the exact time at which Kranar requested, how exactly does a picture of a lander at one location on Pluto prove that there isn't an exact replica of the Statue of Liberty somewhere else on Pluto at 9:31PM on 09/08/2008?

I'm doing two things here: first, I'm putting emphasis on the fact that Kranar wanted proof about "right now"; second, I'm putting emphasis on the word "prove," because I suspect that Kranar had something much more rigorous and conclusive in mind than what you provided. The picture of the lander is far from providing us with absolute certainty, for example. I assume Kranar is gesturing toward something like that fact, but I could be wrong (he can correct me if I am).

In any case, it's clear that you're not exactly level-headed about this. And, frankly, if anyone wants to look into these issues in any real depth, they're going to have to pick up books rather than reach conclusions via forum threads. I just wanted to note that your over-the-top reaction isn't obviously called for by what Kranar said.

[Kranar]

NO THIS IS NOT A GOOD POINT, WE'VE SENT FUCKING LANDERS TO GOD DAMN PLUTO, IF THEY WANTED TO THEY *COULD* PROVE THIS, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS, FUCKING GOOGLE SOMETHING SOMETIME. YOU WONDER WHY I GET SO FUCKING PISSED?

STOP BEING STUPID AND AGREEING WITH STUPID PEOPLE AND SPREADING THE STUPIDITY. YOU'RE FUCKING THE WORLD UP.

*******THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE LANDER ON PLUTO*******


Just so you know, no lander has ever been to Pluto.

However, you do manage to illustrate a very good point that's worth explicitly stating in this argument, although you make it unintentionally:

Regardless of whether a God exists or not, there are complete and absolute morons who believe both points of view.

[Elementz]

Like I said, I wasn't trying to prove Kranar's point, NOR am I responding to his time frame for such a STUPID fucking comment OR the response that I quoted to it. I was explaining WE DO HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

So, I could give two shits less about Kranar's stupidity, I'm addressing someone elses. Thanks for the contribution though, as misguided as it is.

I'm not trying to please someone's demand for proof. I have my proof. You guys are the one's who say I don't know, well I do. And if Nasa wanted to prove it they could. Who gives a fuck about Kranar. OBVIOUSLY the STATUE OF LIBERTY is NOT ON PLUTO so WHY give IGNORANT FOLKS LIKE AUDRIANA SEEDS FOR EVEN MORE IGNORANCE?

[Elementz]

And Kranar regardless if they did land or not, my point illustrates the technology exists and is a better approach to this than making a misguided postulation to prove something completely random exists on another planet.

We have been to Mars, and we have sent the rovers out, and we have sent things into Deep space in short time frames. The technology exists to prove you wrong. Give me the budget and I'll set it up and prove it to you as sooon as humanly possible, can't promise it over night, its hard to spend 200billion that fast.

[Daniel]

Technology is not infalliable, nor is it omnipresent. Your faith in our ability to identify and confirm anything that exists is just as preposterous as someone believing in god.

[Elementz]

In any case, it's clear that you're not exactly level-headed about this. And, frankly, if anyone wants to look into these issues in any real depth, they're going to have to pick up books rather than reach conclusions via forum threads. I just wanted to note that your over-the-top reaction isn't obviously called for by what Kranar said.

By the way, I've dealt with this issue for a long time and I've seen some very intelligent banter on this thread, and aggressive back and forths...

I don't have time, with this topic or conversation (I think I made it clear how valuable my time on Earth is to me), for people who are just going to make shit up and pass stupid ideas back and forth to eachother because they are uneducated dimwits. Seems like I'm the only one who's actually contributed anything besides hearsay, speculation, and ridiculous theories based on fantasy themed energies or dimensions for heaven, that they've come up with THEMSELF. THATS WHY I PLAY GEMSTONE.

Shit or get off the fucking pot.

If no one is going to be serious, I'll make my point however I fucking please, fucking laugh my ass off, and laugh my ass off at you guys with the 20 people who are iming me saying lol brielus you guys are retarded.

[Philosopher]

And Kranar regardless if they did land or not, my point illustrates the technology exists and is a better approach to this than making a misguided postulation to prove something completely random exists on another planet.
To speak for Kranar again, I don't believe that he was "postulating" or attempting to prove that "something completely random exists on another planet." His (implicit) claim was just that one (allegedly) can't prove that there isn't such a thing. This doesn't mean that he takes this as proof that there is such a thing.

Anyway, I'll leave you all to your discussion again.

[Khariz]

I refuse to say that I have the same type of faith that people associate with religion nor do I believe in dogma I accept facts and theory based on fact as the evidence comes in.



It doesn't matter if you "refuse to say it", it's still objectively true. Unfortunately for you, the world exists beyond the way you would like to pretend it does. Your "knowing" that God doesn't exist is just a belief. That's all.

The fact that you can't see that is extremely funny to me.

[Tea & Strumpets]

However, you do manage to illustrate a very good point that's worth explicitly stating in this argument, although you make it unintentionally: Regardless of whether a God exists or not, there are complete and absolute morons who believe both points of view.

I predict a WHOOSH moment.

[Khariz]

I predict a WHOOSH moment.

Pretty sure it already happened.

[Elementz]

It doesn't matter if you "refuse to say it", it's still objectively true. Unfortunately for you, the world exists beyond the way you would like to pretend it does. Your "knowing" that God doesn't exist is just a belief. That's all.

The fact that you can't see that is extremely funny to me.

Actually its a DISbelief. You're very quickly putting yourself in a category that will be ridiculed and shot down. Why don't you bust out a few dictionaries. I don't care which one, they all generally say the same thing on this.

Disbelief is the LACK of a belief. I KNOW what I KNOW. I DISBELIEF YOU OR ANYONE THAT TELLS ME THERE IS A GOD. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD, THAT IS ALMOST AGNOSTIC. I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD WHEN SOMEONE TELLS ME. THAT IS NOT A BELIEF. I DISBELIVE BELIEVERS. (EDIT: Yes I know I used DISBELIEF instead of disbelieve, I was making a point. If you can't grasp the fucking concept of a word why should I think you're capable enough to understand its various forms?)

Get your terminology straight if you're going to try to argue with me. You're going to lose.

[g++]

I cant believe another discussion on religion has stale mated in "you cant prove it exists" and "you cant prove it doesnt". I really thought we were going to tackle it this time.

[Elementz]

holy shit, this is sad that there's such a small percentage of intellectual minds that are able to even grasp the meaning of the simplest words and ideas. Like Atheism. Or belief. Dumbasses.

[Elementz]

I cant believe another discussion on religion has stale mated in "you cant prove it exists" and "you cant prove it doesnt". I really thought we were going to tackle it this time.

Yeah so did I for like half a second. Then the fuckin moron brigade showed up like always. Fuckin A.

Jenisi and I don't agree at all on this topic yet hmm somehow I don't flip out on her. Latristrom and I had a huge debate on even the meaning of the word Atheism that I throughly enjoyed and we ended up not agreeing.

Why? Cause she fuckin KNOWS what SHE'S talking about, even if she doesn't have all the answers about "God" she TRIES AND SHE'S INTELLIGENT. Latristrom? Why? Same fucking reason. I can't vouch for the rest of his intelligence but we've had other conversations and he held up his own against me, so I've got some respect for that.

You flamers and ignoramuses? I could give two shits less about approaching you nicely so you don't QQ if you're not going to contribute.

[Elementz]

It doesn't matter if you "refuse to say it", it's still objectively true. Unfortunately for you, the world exists beyond the way you would like to pretend it does. Your "knowing" that God doesn't exist is just a belief. That's all.

The fact that you can't see that is extremely funny to me.


By the way jackass I was sorting out the difference BETWEEN RELIGIOUS BLIND FAITH AND THE EVERY DAY FAITH OF ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER, OR ONE PERSON TO AN ANINIMATE OBJECT.

I swear to god I'm talking to a bunch of fuckin' 13 year olds. <-- lol brielus

[Tea & Strumpets]

holy shit, this is sad that there's such a small percentage of intellectual minds that are able to even grasp the meaning of the simplest words and ideas. Like Atheism. Or belief. Dumbasses.

You spend so much time congratulating yourself on your own intelligence, that I can't believe you think there is some kind of discussion going on. Also, CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.

Don't make me use bold fonts on that ass. Our differences aside, I'd appreciate it if you didn't point out how much smarter than me you are. Also 27 people are IM'ing me as we speak saying they agree with everything I say.

[g++]

Yeah so did I for like half a second. Then the fuckin moron brigade showed up like always. Fuckin A.

Jenisi and I don't agree at all on this topic yet hmm somehow I don't flip out on her. Latristrom and I had a huge debate on even the meaning of the word Atheism that I throughly enjoyed and we ended up not agreeing.

Why? Cause she fuckin KNOWS what SHE'S talking about, even if she doesn't have all the answers about "God" she TRIES AND SHE'S INTELLIGENT. Latristrom? Why? Same fucking reason. I can't vouch for the rest of his intelligence but we've had other conversations and he held up his own against me, so I've got some respect for that.

You flamers and ignoramuses? I could give two shits less about approaching you nicely so you don't QQ if you're not going to contribute.

I was being sarcastic.

I think what people are saying is that your position that god does not exist is so fervent that it is as irrational as fervent belief in god. The irony of religious debate is that the only way to appear enlightened and reasonable is to admit you simply don't know, because you dont. If you actually feel strongly that god MUST NOT exist you know just like if you feel strongly he/she MUST exist your certainly allowed your opinions but its impossible to prove either.

Its not personal or flaming its just...you know this like the 800th time many of us have had this conversation.

[Elementz]

To speak for Kranar again, I don't believe that he was "postulating" or attempting to prove that "something completely random exists on another planet." His (implicit) claim was just that one (allegedly) can't prove that there isn't such a thing. This doesn't mean that he takes this as proof that there is such a thing.

Anyway, I'll leave you all to your discussion again.

And MY point was, (NO SHIT HE WASN'T SAYING THERE WAS A STATUE OF LIBERTY ON PLUTO, I GET SARCASM IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT NUMBNUTS), THAT YEAH, GUESS WHAT, WE *CAN* PROVE IT, SO FUCK OFF WITH FEEDING PEOPLE GARBAGE.

[Elementz]

I was being sarcastic.

I think what people are saying is that your position that god does not exist is so fervent that it is as irrational as fervent belief in god. The irony of religious debate is that the only way to appear enlightened and reasonable is to admit you simply don't know, because you dont. If you actually feel strongly that god MUST NOT exist you know just like if you feel strongly he MUST exist your certainly allowed your opinions but its impossible to prove either.

Its not personal or flaming its just...you know this like the 800th time many of us have had this conversation.

Dude I knew you were being sarcastic, I was agreeing with you (sort of, in terms of the "stalemate" in the argument. I'll stop saying *I KNOW* when people stop using THAT as the argument.). Its hard to have a conversation with this many people at the same time and be smarter than 2/3's of them. Wasn't aiming that back at YOU, just using it to make a valid response.

[Elementz]

And also, if anyone wants to keep QQ'ing, I refer you to the fucking topic of this thread. (again, not directed at you g++)

[Elementz]

You spend so much time congratulating yourself on your own intelligence, that I can't believe you think there is some kind of discussion going on. Also, CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.

Don't make me use bold fonts on that ass. Our differences aside, I'd appreciate it if you didn't point out how much smarter than me you are. Also 27 people are IM'ing me as we speak saying they agree with everything I say.

Say something intelligent and stop acting like the rest of these idiots, stop QQ'ing and getting offended that you think everyone who is in a minority of intelligence is excluding you from it.

Grow a pair. QQ waah.

Edit: I highly doubt ANYBODY has IMed you to agree, because you haven't made any god damn points to agree to! Just nonsense! Stop being a baby holy shit! Lol do you act like this in public? I act like this in public and I'm not ashamed of it. Do you talk to your mother like that or your boss? I talk to my mother and boss like this.

I mean what I say, I do what I mean, and I know what I know. If you can't handle your inferiority complex, head to a shrink cause *I* can't help you on this thread pal.

[Elementz]

Oh by the way, you see what I did there? I said, I HIGHLY DOUBT ANYBODY HAS IMED YOU TO AGREE. I don't KNOW that for a fact, but I can deduce pretty well and I'm going to assume until proven otherwise you didn't recieve 27 IM's :) Thanks for helping my point with the knowledge VS assumption argument.

[Khariz]

Elementz,

No matter how many times you type that you "know" that God doesn't exist, it'll never be true. You don't know. You *think* that God doesn't exist based on your own perceptions and evidence (or lack thereof). Because you *think* that God does not exist, but cannot *know* it, it is a *belief*.

Here is what I think you fail to understand:

We happen to live in a shared objective reality that exists despite whatever personal fantasy lands we happen to have inside of our own minds. In this Shared objective reality, nobody has EITHER (proved OR disproved) the (existance OR non- existance) of God.

Contrary to what Kranar said earlier, the "burden of proof" is not on the believer in God. The burden of proof, like it is often with the law, is on the claimant. So if a Believer-in-God says to an Athiest "God Exists", the Athiest rightfully reponds "prove it". But when the Athiest tells the Believer-in-God "I KNOW God does not exist", the Believer-in-God suddenly acquires the same right to proof.

If, by contrast, the Athiest tells the Believer-in-God, "I have seen the same things that you have and I still think that God does not exist", that is a valid opinion, but it is still a thought, or a belief.

Note that the above is only true in our shared objective reality. In your own mind, you can "know" whatever you want to know. That doesn't suddenly make it the case in our shared reality though.

[Warriorbird]

That all makes sense until somebody smacks you in the mouth. Fuck a postmodernist.

:)


In your own mind, you can "know" whatever you want to know. That doesn't suddenly make it the case in our shared reality though.

Why most religious people annoy the fuck out of me.

[Elementz]

Elementz,

No matter how many times you type that you "know" that God doesn't exist, it'll never be true. You don't know. You *think* that God doesn't exist based on your own perceptions and evidence (or lack thereof). Because you *think* that God does not exist, but cannot *know* it, it is a *belief*.

Here is what I think you fail to understand:

We happen to live in a shared objective reality that exists despite whatever personal fantasy lands we happen to have inside of our own minds. In this Shared objective reality, nobody has EITHER (proved OR disproved) the (existance OR non- existance) of God.

Contrary to what Kranar said earlier, the "burden of proof" is not on the believer in God. The burden of proof, like it is often with the law, is on the claimant. So if a Believer-in-God says to an Athiest "God Exists", the Athiest rightfully reponds "prove it". But when the Athiest tells the Believer-in-God "I KNOW God does not exist", the Believer-in-God suddenly acquires the same right to proof.

If, by contrast, the Athiest tells the Believer-in-God, "I have seen the same things that you have and I still think that God does not exist", that is a valid opinion, but it is still a thought, or a belief.

Note that the above is only true in our shared objective reality. In your own mind, you can "know" whatever you want to know. That doesn't suddenly make it the case in our shared reality though.


I'm not even reading all of this right now but I can already tell you, every single fucking stupid mother fucker like you, that starts out a sentence saying I don't know what I'm talking about, and my disbelief in any type of god or higher power is based on a LACK of evidence, I will not back down and I will not fucking tell a single person I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm assuming things, because I *KNOW* what I'm talking about.

If you want to hear me say ANYTHING different, you guys seriously need to change your song because telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when I can back it up, is frankly pussy and you're avoiding confronting the issue of the topic.

Like I've said, stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and start presenting some cases, otherwise I've got all the energy in the world to fight the fact that I know what I'm talking about.

If you want to move past that and you want me to respect you enough to read your post, don't start your post out that way or I will NOT fucking be nice, I WILL caps, I WILL bold, I WILL swear, I WILL be aggressive, I WILL be an asshole. I KNOW WHAT I'm TALKING ABOUT. If YOU WANT TO ARGUE, TRY AND CHANGE MY KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE I HAVE EVIDENCE, AND YOU HAVE PRESENTED NONE.

[Khariz]

I'm not even reading all of this right now but I can already tell you...

Nope, read the post.

[Warriorbird]

I wouldn't bother arguing with folks like that, Elementz. Maybe someday you'll grow up. A fair portion of our population believes some pretty crazy stuff that doesn't even have to do with religion.

[Khariz]

Why most religious people annoy the fuck out of me.

I totally understand!

[Warriorbird]

I think growing up 20 minutes away from Jerry Falwell definitely influenced my religious and political views.

[Khariz]

I think growing up 20 minutes away from Jerry Falwell definitely influenced my religious and political views.

LOL, I bet it did!

Just to be clear about why I agree with your quoted sentence:

I'm not just arguing with Elementz here. Christians don't "know" that Jesus is their Lord and savior. They "believe" he is because they have "faith" that a story in a book is true. Just because they *think* they know, doesn't make it true in our objective reality either!

It certainly goes both ways.

[Elementz]

Nope, read the post.

;D good man.

And you're right. I completely agree with you, except for the fact that in THIS shared objective reality of THIS thread, I have only had a very small group of people who have presented any type of reasonable argument, such as yours. Instead of trying to discuss something, the argument becomes, "You can't Know".

You said it right, in my head, I can fucking know whatever I want. So don't tell me otherwise. You can maybe, I don't know.. discuss the difference of opinion? I've already agreed to read agnostic books to try and understand that. I discussed IN LENGTH the different philosophical categories that make up atheism with a fairly intelligent guy, and ultimately don't believe that atheism can be broken down. I don't believe him, but I respect him and the dude that did the research. I've read the research Latristrom had presented and I already had an opinion on it. So that was a GREAT topic for both of us to discuss.

The issue is: Everyone needs to read the first post and understand that in my mind, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to tell me otherwise and you don't back it up, get the hell out.

I back up what I say, I have done so *almost* every single post that I've responded to with facts, analogies to facts (which is, as I found out, a HORRIBLE idea to do with someone who is trying to prove a god), or ideas that try to express simple logic and not use analogies.

If more people would start being respectful like yourself and present a case that I can actually argue *RESPECTFULLY* and RESPECT the presenter of said case, you would see a very different me. I don't have time for nonsense and I don't tolerate the general population and that is no different on an interweb message board than it is if I walk past a couple of mormons who try to sell me on a fkn denomination of christianity.

-Great post.

[Khariz]

Your avatar has become win btw.

[Warriorbird]

Jimmy Carter lusted after women in his mind, Elementz. Cost him a second term. You ought to watch out for that.

-not ClydeR
-not sober

;)

[Elementz]

dofl

[Elementz]

Jimmy Carter lusted after women in his mind, Elementz. Cost him a second term. You ought to watch out for that.

-not ClydeR
-not sober

;)

I do that too!.. AND think this way so... hrmm.. I think I may be screwed! But that's a good thing, I need to get laid anyway.

[Elementz]

On topic, even though this has been bumped, I've always felt the most proof and reason was for being agnostic.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being something other than agnostic. However, having faith means you need to understand what faith is-- you give up reasoning and scientific fact to explain what said reasoning and scientific fact doesn't explain. I have faith in a few things, but if proof does come out that makes my faith null and void, then I will have to re-evaluate my faith and see where I end up again. There's no shame in being religious or spiritual, IMO, but there is in being willfully ignorant to justify yourself.

This.. was beautiful.. ::sniff sniff::

[BigWorm]

Elementz, what is your deal? I just popped in on this thread for the first time since it was bumped but the very fact that you think you can "win" this discussion shows how immature you are.

[Elementz]

ROFL hey, read the first post again dumbass. Its about an individual having personal knowledge, blind faith, and the morons inbetween.

I respect you, I really do. But when you say stupid shit like this without obviously even reading the first post, when the PERSON WHO POSTED the first post AGREES with me (that I know what I know and she knows what she knows), then who's the immature one here?

I'm not trying to WIN anything, but I know what I know and if you tell me otherwise, that I don't know what I know, I'll make a 1 post thread a fucked up 24 page thread.

I'm trying really hard to be nice to you right now if that says anything about my maturity, if you're going to come at me like THAT, if you were anybody else, I would've torn you a new asshole.

But I'm actually mature, so say/think what you will, and I'll know what I will. Maybe at some point you can join the conversation and add something meaningful instead of a flame.

-E

[BigWorm]

Most of your arguments are invalidated because you commit the fallacy of begging the question by assuming a priori that God doesn't exist.

[Khariz]

Most of your arguments are invalidated because you commit the fallacy of begging the question by assuming a priori that God doesn't exist.

Right...

It seems that is saying that he knows god doesn't exist...a posteriori.

HEHE! I keed, I keed. Sorta.

[Elementz]

Most of your arguments are invalidated because you commit the fallacy of begging the question by assuming a priori that God doesn't exist.

I agree it may seem like that. It is of course the overlying topic of the conversation, aside from the fact that the true topic is knowledge vs. blind faith.

Like I've said before, my mother was a Roman Catholic Nun. She lived in a convent. She was "in" a priori of blind faith. She was a Catholic School teacher and she eventually recieved a dismissal from the Pope when she decided she wanted to pursue a career, have a family etc, which she ended up doing years after she left the convent.

I was raised heavily Catholic. I was TAUGHT things, not forced to believe in my household. I came to my conclusions based on my FAITH that the general scientific community has a pretty good understanding of what they're talking about when they publish their results in major scientific journals.

So, maybe it seems like a priori of science. I don't have BLIND faith. I'm not faithless. I'm not attempting to join that collective presumption on purpose. It just makes the most logical sense and if someone wants to have a conversation about it I'm open.

But I can't, you can't, no body can argue with repeatable experiments that clearly indicate a lack of: god and a multiverse that we can travel to (heaven), although parallel universes have not been ruled out by string theory/branes. **Edit You can argue - "That doesn't mean god doesn't exist", but don't fucking argue about science and make it like it doesn't exist. That's just ignorant and I won't listen to you. I may even become a douche bag at that point for saying something that totally negates an obvious fact.

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm being PURELY logical with this conversaion, although my madness is apparent, there is a method and I will not tolerate disrespect of my knowledge, by people on this thread or ANYWHERE, formulating BOGUS INSANE theories that people just make up on the fly, about what THEY think the universe is. Go study some theology. Get a grip on what religion really is, what theism is, what the difference between paganism, atheism, agnosticism, monotheism, and polytheism is, and then open your mouth if you want to create your OWN theory. **Edit(maybe throw some science in there, to kinda, I dunno weed the bullshit out that REALLY doesn't make sense, like Zeus shooting lightning bolts out of his ass and throwing boulders cause he's pissed...)

I might respect "made up" theories if there were substance behind them, instead of someone sounding like a little kid dreaming.

Priori -
# Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.


Thank you for not being a douche.

-E

**edit P.S. I never said I was infallable, I just said I know what I'm fuckin' talkin' about.

[Elementz]

3 things.

A) Does that scare you? That when you die, you cease to be?

B) There's well documented evidence that there's a part of the human brain responsible for religious thoughts. When people get seizures in these parts of the brain they experience extreme feelings of oneness with God and extreme religious feelings.
Now this could have evolved as a defense mechanism, that as we got smarter and self-aware we became aware of our own deaths and to prevent us from just going fucking nuts.
Or maybe it's a transmitter/receiver specifically placed by God.

There are a lot of 'iffy' things like this that could just exist that way by chance, or is evidence of the existance of a creator. None of them can be proved or disproved.

C) Your Santa Clause argument is flawed, as is your math argument.
----
REST OF QUOTE REMOVED FOR STUPIDITY


Why should I act "sane" and respectful towards a comment like this? Page back and see my response. Honestly, what the fuck? I shouldn't even have to ask for a case study on this, its a load of SHIT.

-E

**edit** Your entire brain creates your conscious and subconsciousness. There is NO GOD ANTENNA OR AREA OF YOUR BRAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR RELIGIOUS THOUGHT, JUST IN CASE THERE'S NOBODY HERE WHO HAS EVER ACTUALLY TAKEN A FUCKING PSYCHOLOGY COURSE, OR A HUMAN ANATOMY, OR BIOLOGY COURSE, IN ***REMEDIAL**** COLLEGE.

[Elementz]

Everyone was real quick to talk shit to me all day about this, :\ didn't mean to kill the thread with insight. Sorry.

[Nieninque]

I respect you, I really do. But when you say stupid shit like this without obviously even reading the first post, when the PERSON WHO POSTED the first post AGREES with me...

It was Jenisi.

[Elementz]

It was Jenisi.

............. I'm glad you understand that, seeing as how she's one of my best friends, I sort of knew that already.

*edit -you douche, lol brielus
**edit -you douchey asshole, lol brielus

[Elementz]

I think its bullshit the conversation has stopped. But do you guys and girls REALLY fucking think, that I WANT to *know* this shit that I *know*?

You think I wouldn't LOVE to believe your fairy tales? I would give everything I have, everything I've ever known or believed or had faith in, to *know* there was a heaven, or a god, or an afterlife.

So fuck you guys for judging ME about what I *know* when I'm trying the best I can to fucking figure it out. Why don't you guys fucking try and figure it out and stop bitching at ME.

[Elementz]

I said it before and I'll say it again. If I'm right, you're all fucked. So I hope you guys know what you're talking about because I don't believe a fucking word any of you say. I don't want to live knowing you're all fucked. So, lets hope what I *know* is a bunch of bullshit and all of you, the rest of the world, all the war, all the death, all of the confusion, lets hope it was worth it and you guys are right and I'm wrong

[Warriorbird]

If you proselytize... aren't you being just like them?

[Elementz]

I'm not fucking proselytizing. I don't have the energy to do this with 6.721 billion people and get everybody to live each day like its their last. Cause guess what, one day it will be your last, its not my fucking problem. I HAVE MY LAST DAY TO WORRY ABOUT TOO PEOPLE.

So should I let the world kill me or should I move on and live within myself and what I *know*?

I'd rather say FUCK YOU, flip you all off, hop in my fucking mustang, and watch you all die, as much as I hate *knowing* that's whats going to happen, than give up my dis-belief and have nothing come from it. So no I'm not proselytizing.
And you can all fucking rot in hell, because I'm not your fucking savior.

[Dothstar's_Seven]

There is NO GOD ANTENNA OR AREA OF YOUR BRAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR RELIGIOUS THOUGHT, JUST IN CASE THERE'S NOBODY HERE WHO HAS EVER ACTUALLY TAKEN A FUCKING PSYCHOLOGY COURSE, OR A HUMAN ANATOMY, OR BIOLOGY COURSE, IN ***REMEDIAL**** COLLEGE.

Almost all caps to express your rage.

I have taken a fucking psychology course, a human anatomy course, and a biology course in "***REMEDIAL***" college.

There is no God Antenna in your brain responsible for religious thought. That's just fucking retarded, and not how it works at all.

GOD AND JESUS ARE IN OUR HEARTS, NOT OUR BRAINS.

Headphones covering your ears, streaming Christian Rock, are responsible for religious thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0FCeIKTrL0

[Elementz]

In the spirit of the OP, I agree with your side, Jenisi. Atheists just seem bitter to me. They're just as bad as the super-religious.


And fuck you too bitch.

[Warriorbird]

I think you should pop a 'Thug Life!' before you go like the guy in Pineapple Express, Elementz. Then you can ride on your enemies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdXAnezNZQ

[CrystalTears]

Elementz = Ashliana?

[Tea & Strumpets]

If no one is going to be serious, I'll make my point however I fucking please, fucking laugh my ass off, and laugh my ass off at you guys with the 20 people who are iming me saying lol brielus you guys are retarded.



Edit: I highly doubt ANYBODY has IMed you to agree, because you haven't made any god damn points to agree to! Just nonsense! Stop being a baby holy shit! Lol do you act like this in public? I act like this in public and I'm not ashamed of it. Do you talk to your mother like that or your boss? I talk to my mother and boss like this.


Do you think there is any chance I was mocking your moronic way of trying to prove your point? You're hilarious, especially when you type QQ 7 or 8 times in a post --- what a burn! Every time I read one of those "QQ"s I felt like I'd been punched in the face!