Atheism 101: you can't prove a negative.

Prove it! :)

I find it funny that because I believe in a God, Im supposed to be stupid. Yet, I find that a person who believes that ALL of the universe, and all of this matter came from absolute nothingness is just as ignorant as they think I am.

Either way you look at it, the odds of all of this coming from a vacuum of emptiness, vs the existance of God are probably pretty damn even.

It still boils down to a question of Faith.

Actually, it's your inability to comprehend basic ideas and logic, and your poor reading comprehension that leads me *personally* to believe you are stupid.

There's nothing about being an atheist that you could associate with a claim of believing in the theory of the big bang or that the universe came from nothingness.

I am an atheist. I do not know how the universe began, and I do not think it began from nothing. I am interested in learning through observation, and discussing theoretical ideas that might have relations to an explanation of the origins of the universe as we know it, as is SCIENCE. Science does not claim the big bang was fact, science cannot claim something until it is proven.

You also still miss the point that you are the one bringing an invented claim to the atheist. You claim there is a god. Prove it and the debate doesn't exist. Until then, everything you base on this is based on nothing at all. I am not claiming there is no existence, that is a given until proven otherwise, as is every outrageous claim.

It requires no faith to not believe in an omnipotent invisible superhero in the sky.

Wow, lots of replies directed back towards me. I always did enjoy a good debate.

I still have to use the security blanket of stating that a debate like this will never go any farther than just that.

The problem (or the process as some of you like to call it) is that science is always changing its, "facts". They dont truly know whats going on, not yet... maybe they will never know.

As for no proof of Gods existance, well.. Im not much of a scholar in that department. I could say the dead sea scrolls, or the fact that its pretty common knowledge that Jesus was alive, and here on earth based on recorded history.

Does it say he did miracles? Maybe.. I dont know. But, even if it were recorded, Im sure you people would be adamant about calling that all fiction. You call the bible fiction, so what would stop you from calling anything else the same?

Its not something Im going to get worked up over though, like I said I just enjoy a good debate.

Am I alone in thinking I want this back-and-forth controversy to go on forever?  It's great entertainment!

chewd

The God you are describing is the Old Testement God. There is a clear line of demarcation between The attitude of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. The difference is almost schizophrenic, but it represnts a more enlightened understanding of the nature of the creator of the universe as explained by Jesus Christ. And the way He described it was basically - "Hey, everybody be nice"

and that's why they nailed Him to a tree, it was way too easy and didn't require years of scholarly research to understand.

But yeah, Old Testament God was a total asshole.

spectral: Wow, lots of replies directed back towards me. I always did enjoy a good debate.

It was NOT a good debate. You broke every rule of debate. Logical fallacies, not responding to points made over and over again, the works. I don't even think you know what a debate is.

enkafan

Matthew 19: 17-19
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "

Guess which six are missing? You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make yourself an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy. Hmmmm......

Yeah, but Jebus was drunk on his ass half the time. He probably just couldn't remember the rest.

/the whole "turning water into wine" thing just got out of control in the later years.

JQPublic
Atheism is no more a religion, than baldness is a hair color.

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Very astute observation! How true.

Spectral: Do I get to call them all stupid?

Sure, if you like. But based on your own scribblings in here, I'm sure there's more evidence that you're the one without much intelligence. Just make sure you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists before calling anyone else stupid.

This was fun for awhile, but discussing things like this with someone who doesn't understand the basics of science and logic is tedious at best. In the end, you'll still be screaming "PROVE EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE TO ME BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT!", and I'll have a headache from trying to convince someone that can't be convinced.

Bye, y'all.

"It was NOT a good debate. You broke every rule of debate. Logical fallacies, not responding to points made over and over again, the works. I don't even think you know what a debate is."

very well put.

Spectral:

As for no proof of Gods existance, well.. Im not much of a scholar in that department. I could say the dead sea scrolls, or the fact that its pretty common knowledge that Jesus was alive, and here on earth based on recorded history.

Quote sources please.

Does it say he did miracles? Maybe.. I dont know. But, even if it were recorded, Im sure you people would be adamant about calling that all fiction. You call the bible fiction, so what would stop you from calling anything else the same?

What just a farking minute here. You're saying you believe in a deity who you haven't studied and have no idea what was written about him. But you believe in him all the same. Scientists perform research to prove their theories and all you can do is parrot second-hand belief? That's pretty sad.

2003-08-27 01:42:31
PM
Diogenes



NutznGum: Jesus must be spinning in his grave over this.

Isn't that a little tough with his arms stretched out like that?

/hellbound

And a cool breeze wafts as a gentle zephyr out of the holy land.

Take that, satanic heat wave!

2003-08-27 01:59:41 PM chewd
To me, athiesm isnt saying "there is definately not a god of any sort" to me athiesm is "maybe there is, maybe there isnt a god, it is impossible to prove or disprove. It is one of many things that we are simply not meant to know."

Chewd, that's not atheism, that's agnosticism. "The universe is innocent until proven guilty."

GW_Diesel
best post today

Elaine: Oh. So, you're pretty religious?

Puddy: That's right.

Elaine: So is it a problem that I'm not really religious?

Puddy: Not for me.

Elaine: Why not?

Puddy: I'm not the one going to hell.

Atheism is a religion like "Healthy" is a disease.

Bevets, your paint analogy is stupid and, quite frankly, is rapidly becoming tiresome.

If I put a "Republicans rock" sticker on my car, I'm endorsing Republicans. If I put a "Democrats rock" sticker on my car, I'm endorsing Democrats. If I don't put any stickers on my car, what am I endorsing? Political apathy? The lack of stickers on my car says nothing about the political affiliations of the driver. If anything, I'm saying that I don't think my car is the proper place to express my political views.

Spectral:

The problem you have with science, that it is tentative about everything, is it's greatest strength as a philosophy. It is also why science is not a religion.

Your proof for a historical Jesus is not proof that he was the son of God, as you've noted. Mohommed has similar historical evidence as Jesus, as does the Buddha.

People say the Bible is fiction because some of it is clearly allegory. Other parts seem fanciful. That doesn't mean it can't be useful. Aesop's Fables is useful, but ficticious, and loses meaning when it is taken as a history. It could even be true that God exists, but yet the Bible is fiction inspired by God to lead people correctly.

The problem is always evidence, as Bevets would say if this were about evolutionary theory (the evidence for that is a bit beyond his scientific knowledge, unfortunately. It is easier to understand the apologetics) There are a great many things that are fiction, and only through lots of study can many things be rooted out. I make an effort to evaluate the evidence for all of my beliefs, that is why I enjoy debates of this nature.

The Ten Commandments are Jewish laws, not Christian laws. This is because the Jews did not have any type of laws or order when they left Egypt. The Only thing Christ told his followers to do is love one another as I have loved you. He did not mention the Ten Commandments.
So if we are really Christians, we would not want to see the Commandments anywhere.

"People say the Bible is fiction because some of it is clearly allegory. Other parts seem fanciful. That doesn't mean it can't be useful. Aesop's Fables is useful, but ficticious, and loses meaning when it is taken as a history. It could even be true that God exists, but yet the Bible is fiction inspired by God to lead people correctly."

nicely put, gil.

Can any Christian and/or monument supporter please tell me how their ability to worship as they choose is affected by the removal of this statue?

A statue with crap like "thou shalt have no god before me" has NO place in a public building whose purpose is the dispensation of justice. Christian law is NOT American Law. All of you IDIOTS who keep chanting your mantra of "but US law is based on the 10 commandments" need to remove your head from your anus'.

As such, "god" should be stricken from all LAW oriented public buildings as well as our currency. NO religion has ANY place in OUR GOVERNMENT. You read that? OUR government, NOT YOURS, OURS. EVERYONE, not just christians. Why hasn't it been done yet? Because idiot BASTARDS like this judge do everything in their power to keep "god" in there.

Keep your farking religion in/on your churches/homes/bumper-stickers/person and STOP TRYING TO MAKE EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVE YOUR STUPID STUPID BELIEFS YOU FARKTARDS.

Unlike you farking religo'tards, some people in this world are able to derive morality and law from humanity itself and do not need the threat of eternal damnation over their heads to keep them in line. It's called "being a good person" and doesn't REQUIRE believing the CRAP written in an ancient book.

I am SICK of religious people trying to enforce their brand of stupidity on everyone else. I am also SICK of hearing the religo'tards biatch and moan that atheists "are just pushing THEIR beliefs". WRONG, they are TRYING to PREVENT YOU from enforcing your beliefs on people WHO DON'T GIVE A SHIAT WHAT YOU THINK and, are upholding LAWS that support that very idea. There is a CLEAR and DISTINCT difference between enforcing belief and enforcing EQUALITY. Now, PLEASE, PLEASE, KILL EACH OTHER AND GO TO YOUR GOD SO THE REST OF US CAN LIVE IN PEACE.

The problem (or the process as some of you like to call it) is that science is always changing its, "facts". They dont truly know whats going on, not yet... maybe they will never know.

If someone wants to accept a theory them as a fact, more power to them, but they're believing something that could potentially be disproven later on down the line. That's why you don't see signs out on the front lawns of research facilities screaming that some theory is the reason god doesn't exist (unlike what you'll see in front of churches).

I'D HIT IT
with a 20lb slegde hammer!

Sooooo, if they were gonna leave the damn thing there, we should also put up some statues of Allah and Buddah, because our country has those people in it too. Might as well put up some of that Indian god guy too.

This country is far from unanimous in its religion, so stop swangin on Jebus's sac.

"The Ten Commandments are Jewish laws"

And yet (at least in America) it's never the Jews who are grandstanding about putting up the Torah in public places.

Why? American Jews are smart.

2003-08-27 02:18:33 PM MyrnaMinkoff
Can any Christian and/or monument supporter please tell me how their ability to worship as they choose is affected by the removal of this statue?

It's not Myrna. It's just that they can't stand the fact that they are not allowed to browbeat folks with their religious beliefs. And (forgive the pun) God forbid they should give other religions equal brow-beating time.

Christianity is an offshoot from judaism. The first christians called themselves jews. Christians believe in the same god jews do, they just believe something different happened 2000 years ago than jews do (which changes a lot). Most of judaism stuck around in christianity, except what was ammended by the new testament.

Why dont they just "cut and paste" the damn flamewar thread from the Boobies? This is the same damn arguments from the same people! Touchy issue though.

The problem (or the process as some of you like to call it) is that science is always changing its, "facts". They dont truly know whats going on, not yet... maybe they will never know.

You're right, what a silly "process." We should stop trying to find the truth and blindly accept what is told to us in a 2000-year-old book.

Each year we know more and more about our planet, our universe, and our species. Things that can be shown through concrete scientific data. It's true...the further we look into things the more complicated they become, but I hardly think that we should stop looking. If you do, well, that's sad.

Wow, CortexExodus, you might want to have them boost your ritalin dosage there. Either that, or cut back to just two pots of coffee in the morning. :-)

I have issues with that whole "virgin birth" thing. Imagine trying that in todays times.

"No Joe, I swear I've never had sex before. I don't know how I got pregnant. You still want to get married?"

"Ok honey. We'll get married...right after the DNA tests."

Ditto: No DNA tests, heretic, they defy faith. Or something. HANG HIM!

Whether god exists or not isn't really the issue here. It's the endorsement of the ten commandments (which I don't believe anyone can realistically argue is not an icon specifically associated with the biblical version of the universe) in a courthouse. It doesn't even have to be an issue of seperation of church and state. It is an issue of obvious partiality in a system which must be impartial to function properly as it was intended.

Of course, taking down the statue, or putting one up, isn't going to change the judge. In the end it simply comes down to image. Our legal system is not impartial, and in that respect it is failing, but the presence/absence of physical manifestations of various biases do not make it so.

I am an atheist. Should I have to worry about hiding my beliefs if I enter this courthouse, to avoid harsher sentencing? It comes down to a bigger issue than "the law says you don't have to". It comes down to having the support of the community to believe what you want to. That doesn't have to be "shoved down someone's throat" to be broken. The law says people of all colors should be equal, but it doesn't actually happen. This is less about law and more about social environment.

And just as a P.S. I don't particularly see a courthouse with no monuments in it as an atheist establishment. It's not like they put up a sign that says "no god in here".

And yet (at least in America) it's never the Jews who are grandstanding about putting up the Torah in public places.

Because they know what happens when you mix religion and government.

Spectral: I want to see proof that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

Ok. Photons and gravitons and the like are the only things capable of traveling at the speed of light because they have no mass. As something with mass nears the speed of light, its mass becomes greater and approaches infinity. Since nothing can have infinite mass, it is not possible for matter to travel at, or faster than the speed of light.

some more comments

"I want to see hard information that the Big Bang started the universe as we know it."

heres the fun part about science & why you really should go back to school. Sceince is built around theories. Astronomers have measured the movements of stars and planets and found that EVERYTHING is moving away from the center of the universe. Logic dictates that an object moving away from point A to point B was at some time located AT or NEAR point A (unless some unseen force has altered its trajectory. Therefore it is logical to assume that ALL of the universe was at one time at the center. What happened there is merely theory based on what little we know about massively dense material. The theory will stand until more information comes along to prove or disprove it. Scientists are quick to embrace information even (especially) when it contradicts their theorems.

"I want to see proof that nothing can exceed the speed of light."

Here again, this is a theory based on the fact that we have not observed any particles travelling faster. If indeed we did observe such a particle, the scientific world would be happy to do away with this theory, and try to understand the mechanics of these particles. (incedently certain quantum particles HAVE been observed travelling faster than the speed of light, or so it is believed, quantum particles are notoriously difficult to observe and measure)

"I want to see proof that we as humans evolved from monkeys."

this is where things get different. Evolution is not so much a theory anymore as there has been observable evolution in various creatures. It has been recorded, and as such is a fact. Various Virii and bacteria have evolved resistances to various medications, this has been seen many times. Several plants have been seen to evolve to fit changing climates. As for humans, it is observable that the average height of homo sapeins has increased nearly a foot in the last 2 centuries alone. For evidence that we evolved from monkies, simply compare our DNA with that of any primate & you will see a 99% match. Here it is only theoretical, but which is more probable? that we descended from other animals who are almost exacly like us (save 1% of their DNA) or that we were magically created from clay & mud (which has a 0% DNA match)

"I want to see proof that love is real."

I have seen love in my lovers eyes, I have felt her loving embrace. She has done things that have no other explanation than she loves me. Were it not for her, i would probably not believe in love either. Love is not something i claim to understand completely, but i dont have to understand love to know it exists, i do, however need to see proof of it, and i believe that i have. If it were possible see and feel god in the same way that i see and feel my wife i would be much more inclined to believe in him.

as an athiest i concede that in fact god COULD exist, but as a realist, i feel that is the most improbable explanation for our existance imaginable, therefore i do not put much credence in it.

The primary difference we see here is that when science is confronted with proof of something that cannot be explained with current theory, it is embraced, measured, taken apart, and put back together until we have new theories which CAN explain the phenomenon. When religion is confronted with proof of something that connot be explained with current dogma, it is rediculed, harassed, covered up, and denied.

which will lead to a better understand of ourselves and our universe?

it occurs to me that when you think you know all the answers, you stop asking questions. Therein lay the danger of faith-based belief systems.

Ditto,

Let me add an addendum
"Joe, wait, I know who the dad is, it was God"

"God, Mary, you are sayinig Hank Came in here and gave you a baby?"

"Well, not Hank himself, but that creepy skinny guy he hangs out with, the Holy Ghost"

"The Holy Ghost had sex with you? I'll Kill him"

"He didn't have sex with me, I closed my eyes and he just magically put it in me"

"Oh yeah, did he magically put it in your cooter...?"

"Now that you mention it..."

"I'll Kill him"

BRIGHT LIGHTS

"What.. Mary.. uh... okay never mind, I guess it is Hanks baby after all"

We all know that the dinasour bones were buried by god to test our faith. Really. I am serious. No, really.

It occurred to me that this isn't said enough: Atheists are stupid. Agnostics, hey I respect them, but anyone who knows what the word means and still claims he is an atheist is just a big stupid doo-doo head.

And it's becoming increasingly clear to me that while I wouldn't like living in a fundamentalist theocracy, it would probably be slightly better then what life would be like if atheists had their way.

And to all those people who've been trying like mad to kill off God from this world over the last 40 years, you pushed the pendulum too far, and the it's starting to swing the other way, go past the middle and towards the other side. Thanks a lot asshats. When church attendance becomes mandatory because you pissed off so many otherwise mild mannered Christians, I hope you'll be happy.

Never mind. Im in a foul mood.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the 10 commandments were even PUT in a govt. courthouse?
I mean look at the actions of our govt. and our so called leaders.
Their gods are power and money.
They kill innocent people in the name of their holy war on terrorism.
They lie to their people to justify this.
They dihonor the mothers and fathers of the people they send over to fight their wars by lying about the reasons for war.
They covet their enemies oil.
Then they steal that oil to pay for their war.
Maybe we should put the ten commandments in EVERY govt. building to remind these hypocrites of a more humanistic way to lead our country.

Pathighgate
Atheists are stupid.
Incredible.

Pathighgate:

WAH!

The constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Roy Moore is not a congressman, but a Judge. Find me a location in the constitution that says an ofice holder can not acknowledge God.

"Roy Moore is not a congressman, but a Judge."

didn't read the thread.

draksig: "Find me a location in the constitution that says an ofice holder can not acknowledge God."

Excerpt from the 14th ammendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Whch makes the bill of rights apply to states, as well as congress. Anything else I can clear up for you?

draksig
Roy Moore is not a congressman, but a Judge. Find me a location in the constitution that says an ofice holder can not acknowledge God.

The problem isn't that the judge believes in or "acknowledges" God - the problem is that he is using his position as a servant and representative of the state to promots his religious beliefs. (He could have had a convincing legal argument that he was only using them for their historical significance, but he's blown that via his speaking engagements).

If the statue was on his land at his house - or even on his desk in his office, no one would have a problem with it.

What I have learned from this thread:

Atheists are a boring and intellectually one-dimensional folk.