If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

 628
•       •       •

35996 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Nov 2012 at 1:38 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (1/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Wow that must be embarrassing for that guy. And it should be embarrassing for everyone who agrees with him, but it won't be.

In a nutshell:

Kid: What proof do you have that God exists?

Creationist: Uh...because anything is possible.

Kid: Then it's possible you're wrong?

Creationist: WHAARGAARBL!

I like that you can't know 2+2=4 unless you know everything everywhere.

What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I don't think creationist guy knows enough to state the question, but he seems to be saying that one can't prove God does not exist, which requires proving a negative, without knowing "everything", which would allow one to know that "everything" doesn't include God. Mr. Creationist conflates evasion and stopping the debate with with "winning". In his halting, unsophisticated nattering, he is, indeed, completely outflanked by Atheist Kid. The whole mess proves only that Mr. Creationist is full of sh*t, and that Atheist Kid is smarter and more articulate than he.

These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.
However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts

gremlin1: I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous

Good. The earth is only 6000 years old.

Oh... and Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. He had to tranquilize the 'raptors to keep things manageable.

The creationist's premise is that unless you know everything you can't be sure that anything is true unless someone who knows everything tells you so.

As such, since I don't know everything I can't be sure that God exists unless It tells me so Itself. I assume the creationist believes that God communicates with people through the Bible. However, given the creationist's premise that we can't be sure of anything without knowing everything there is no way for us to know whether the Bible is actually the Word of God.

Fark Me To Tears: gremlin1: I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous

Good. The earth is only 6000 years old.

Oh... and Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. He had to tranquilize the 'raptors to keep things manageable.

I just want to know how Noah managed to keep the rabbits down to just two.

gremlin1: I just want to know how Noah managed to keep the rabbits down to just two.

All the animals got a commemorative lucky rabbit's foot upon departure.

How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter.

gremlin1: Fark Me To Tears: gremlin1: I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous

Good. The earth is only 6000 years old.

Oh... and Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. He had to tranquilize the 'raptors to keep things manageable.

I just want to know how Noah managed to keep the rabbits down to just two.

I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot.

Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room.

Damn, that's some tortured masturbatory logic.

Dimwitted zealots.

Earguy: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot.

Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room.

That's one of the worst 'both sides are bad' I've ever seen.

Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

Weak troll. You should've put more effort into supporting douchebag than calling a child who won a debate whiny.

If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this?

Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I'll say. And since we all know how much of a fan the Left is now that "math" (since Saint Clinton invoked it at their convention) and "statistics" (since the Mainstream Media has annointed Saint Nate Silver as the Holy Crusader of Liberalism), here's a test they can do to see it for themselves.

1) Watch the video with pen and paper in hand.
2) Mark each time the little boy says "um" or "uh" or some other vocalized pause and each time the man does.
3) Tally up the scores and weep.

See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science. And here's another fact: the higher pitched someone's voice gets in an argument, they more they know they're losing. Listen the video again, and now listen to their voice tones. Tell me who sounds like the frantic, defeated loser.

This is how criminals are caught, people.

It's unfortunate the kid didn't really get the chance to (and may not have been eloquent enough to) destroy that bullshiat "can you trust me that 2+2=4 if it has been revealed to me?" argument, because that was a really dumb example.

Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).
2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.
3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)
4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.
5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though).

nmrsnr: I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument.

Yay, fun. :D

These are the two most obvious ones.

3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)

Begs the question. Assumes the being communicating with you is perfect (and is not lying). At least, I think this is question begging, or at least similar to it. Whatever the fallacy is in this situation, it boils down to you not having any reason to be certain in the knowledge that the being communicating with you does indeed have perfect knowledge.

Then you have to throw in the qualification that Hovind had to in TFA, with the statement that there is a rule that the being with perfect knowledge cannot lie (yet never offering a reason why or even allowing anyone the chance to ask). Which means any argument you base off that will beg the question, because it will have to assume those antecedents.

nmrsnr: 4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.

Begs the question. Assumes that the Bible is the revealed word of that deity.

Well, that was fun. ;)

/don't mind me... just really really bored right now

I've been outwitted by sixth graders in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook and by gum has it been that many years since that episode first aired?

The best part about having faith is that it does not require constant validation through argument.

Porous Horace: I've been outwitted by sixth graders in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook and by gum has it been that many years since that episode first aired?

Since you used the phrase "by gum" I'm going to go with "yes"

Time is cubed

strobe: Time is cubed

would be awesome if he was right.

nmrsnr: I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).
2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.
3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)
4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.
5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though).

that hurt my brain

I don't even know what I know - how can I possibly know what I believe?

Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates.

apparently because it's more important to be right(and therefore better than the other person) than it is to gain a better understanding of their viewpoint and the world in general

/that being said creationist dude seems like a douche bag

gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.
However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

I am an atheist, and I really that statement. :)

Porous Horace: I've been outwitted by sixth graders in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook and by gum has it been that many years since that episode first aired?

Did they sell you a bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail?

Old video is very old.

nmrsnr: Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).
2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.
3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)
4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.
5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though).

So, basically:

SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!!! LA LA LA LA LA! NOT LISTENING!! LA LA LA LA LAAAAA!!!!

mamoru: Begs the question. Assumes that the Bible is the revealed word of that deity.

It says it is. Duh.

Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter.

because the atheists would spend all of their time telling the agnostic that he's really an atheist and he's just afraid to admit it.

The creationist would spend all of their time telling the agnostic that he's really a christian and he's just afraid to admit it.

the agnostic would spend all of their time rolling their eyes.

a concept by which we measure our pain
-johann lenin

Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter.

Well, think about the task you've just posed---getting someone to give a shiat enough about the issue to show and ask, "Who gives a shiat?"

Has Mike_LoWELL been freebasing Cheetos?

His performance art is a mite lacking today.

Ed Finnerty: If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this?

I am.

It's called psychokinesis. Look it up.

I'm not even willing to anymore to accept that others have different beliefs than I do, if you believe in God, you're a damn moron, bottom line.

Pocket Ninja: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science.
.

Can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are about that. I would I mean, but you wouldn't buy it. Please though... quote a few 'sources' which back up your 'fact'.

Meh, you guys missed the part after the video ends; basically, jebus rides a velociraptor, with a Romney/Ryan bumper sticker on its tail, down a rainbow and strikes down the lil' commie where she stands. It was awesome.

/ oh, I almost forgot; Jebus was playing the "America, Fark Yeah!" song on his electric guitar.

// I keed, I keed

Begoggle: [i3.photobucket.com image 288x401]

You don't have enough black mana to cast that.

Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

As long as you're talking about maturity and not chronological age, sure.

Arthur Jumbles: The creationist's premise is that unless you know everything you can't be sure that anything is true unless someone who knows everything tells you so.

As such, since I don't know everything I can't be sure that God exists unless It tells me so Itself. I assume the creationist believes that God communicates with people through the Bible. However, given the creationist's premise that we can't be sure of anything without knowing everything there is no way for us to know whether the Bible is actually the Word of God.

It can't be unless God is senile. There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies in that book.

gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

Why?

Serious question, by the way.

I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand.

Look as crazy wrong as I think the creationists are, at least that guy showed up and answered questions.

Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

You are seriously funny. You aren't Larry David are you?

nmrsnr: Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient.

Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life.

I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this:

1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father).
2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists.
3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy)
4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence.

When he reached #4, you should have referred him back to #1, and then went and got some White Castle while he tried to figure it out.

everybody's gotta believe something

I believe I'll have another beer.

and then another, just to make sure.

eraser8: gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

Why?

Serious question, by the way.

I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand.

For science!

My reaction to creationist douchebag logic:

to gear duality to impose the will of greater on the creation of one...

wait i forgot .. what about my pay raise?

Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter.

Agnosticism isn't the subject of the debate, so we don't know whether the kid is also an agnostic.

Keep in mind that a theist can be an agnostic and so can an atheist.

There's also a term for those who think the whole argument is pointless and isn't worth discussing...but, it eludes me at the moment (too many beers).

Begoggle: [i3.photobucket.com image 288x401]

I haven't seen Bevets is a looooong time. I am starting to think he is gone for good.

/It's just not a religious wacko thread without Bevets

This About That: I don't think creationist guy knows enough to state the question, but he seems to be saying that one can't prove God does not exist, which requires proving a negative, without knowing "everything", which would allow one to know that "everything" doesn't include God. Mr. Creationist conflates evasion and stopping the debate with with "winning". In his halting, unsophisticated nattering, he is, indeed, completely outflanked by Atheist Kid. The whole mess proves only that Mr. Creationist is full of sh*t, and that Atheist Kid is smarter and more articulate than he.

Which proves a very important thing, which I just recently learned:

If you have faith, then you WILL be compared to the most ignorant, unwisest people that anyone on the web knows.

If you have religous beliefs, you're automatically a terrorist.

So sayeth Fark.

That is all (that college freshmen have to say)

Yogimus: strobe: Time is cubed

would be awesome if he was right.

You worship Satanic impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

Opposite Creation dooms human singularity. There's no human entity, only corner Cubics,
rotating life's 4 corner stage metamorphosis.

eraser8: gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

Why?

Serious question, by the way.

I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand.

Because reasoning minds generated from an ancient, massive universe capable of producing self replicating chemical compounds are much better geared to explore the creation, and by doing such, seek out the Creator.

Unthinking automatons created from mud by magic will more than likely be lost looking for an invisible sky wizard.

Lionel Mandrake: So, basically:

Yeah, but change "believe" to "know" and assert admission of fallibility is a weakness.

Decados: Pocket Ninja: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science.
.

Can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are about that. I would I mean, but you wouldn't buy it. Please though... quote a few 'sources' which back up your 'fact'.

You must be new here. Pocket Ninja is one of the greatest among us, we are all better when he deigns to post.

HortusMatris: My reaction to creationist douchebag logic:
[www.startrek.com image 320x320]

indeed. pocket ninja is our god. go find your own!

Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

eraser8: There's also a term for those who think the whole argument is pointless and isn't worth discussing...but, it eludes me at the moment (too many beers).

Apatheism. It's called apatheism.

SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

Deeply religious individuals may find this material offensive or disturbing. (new window)

Yawn
Humans will be humans

gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.
However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

No offense intended, but when you just make up your own god you should have no problem making it fit with scientific evidence.

All you've done is find that you can't figure out an answer to how something could come from nothing or how something could have always been around (the universe, and you've picked the former- something from nothing via a big bang) and said 'aha, must be magic' and then personified that magic.

I think I understand your form of god less than I do the followers of any particular religion. They believe what they were told and accept it: they even have stories that, when believed, provide evidence and history of a god of one type or another. You just magicked up your own personal sky wizard.

Rent Party: When he reached #4, you should have referred him back to #1, and then went and got some White Castle while he tried to figure it out.

No no no, you misunderstand. I admitted that I might be mistaken about what I perceive, he admits no such thing, since he knows that god exists, so there is no such failing for him. Since he knows god exists, and he can't be wrong about that (since he won't admit it), then it proves that god must exist.

/my screams of frustration and the sound of my brain grinding to a halt was heard throughout the dorm.
//with that, sleep. I'll try and catch up in the morning.

Rent Party: eraser8: gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

Why?

Serious question, by the way.

I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand.

Because reasoning minds generated from an ancient, massive universe capable of producing self replicating chemical compounds are much better geared to explore the creation, and by doing such, seek out the Creator.

Unthinking automatons created from mud by magic will more than likely be lost looking for an invisible sky wizard.

Thanks for the response, but it doesn't really answer my question.

Perhaps I should have fleshed it out a little more. So, here goes:

If the big bang occurred and life emerged and persisted and evolved in the way science has revealed to us, why is there a need for a god at all? Isn't the addition of a god needlessly complicating the explanation of our existence? In other words, science has shown that a god is unnecessary for our existence...so, why insert a superfluous agent into the mix?

nmrsnr: Rent Party: When he reached #4, you should have referred him back to #1, and then went and got some White Castle while he tried to figure it out.

No no no, you misunderstand. I admitted that I might be mistaken about what I perceive, he admits no such thing, since he knows that god exists, so there is no such failing for him. Since he knows god exists, and he can't be wrong about that (since he won't admit it), then it proves that god must exist.

/my screams of frustration and the sound of my brain grinding to a halt was heard throughout the dorm.
//with that, sleep. I'll try and catch up in the morning.

Ah I see.

Why do you even talk to people like that?

/ 0 Tolerance for morons...

Oh, and a two year old repeating "why" could have beaten this schmuck.

SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

That's what always made God so unappealing to me... only a total penis would give mankind the gift of free will, then punish us for all eternity for not using it exactly how he wants us to. That's just a cruel joke and it makes me think that the Christian god is a total shiathead for setting us all up for failure.

/Also, I'm pretty sure its cheating if your rule book is totally unclear
//Slashies

gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.
However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

One common argument I always see is that the universe is too complicated to have occurred via chance, so something must have created it.

Why does the Big Bang need someone to "set it off", why couldn't the universe exist on its own without requiring a creator?

If complexity is the reason, then wouldn't that same complexity apply to a deity? (IE, God is too complicated to have occurred via chance, so something must have created it.).

And that just results in a logical loop (if God is complicated, then whatever created god must also be complicated, and thus must also require a creator, and so on and so on).

Whereas, the universe just existing, without requiring any sort of creator, is much more logical to me.

// in short, it's turtles all the way down

nmrsnr: my brain grinding to a halt

I'm glad I'm not the only one this happens to.

gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.
However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes.

The universe is complicated enough to begin with, why complicate it further with having not only to create everything in it, but first creating an omnipotent being to create everything else? Having a god makes the universe much more complicated, not less.

Ed Finnerty: If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this?

Not a soul except you.

But of course, I'm crazy enough to believe that God created us because He got sick of being surrounded by yes-men that He created and imbued with conscience but no free will, so....

....

Us.

propasaurus: That creationist guy = Eric Hovind.

Eric Hovind is the son of convicted tax-dodger and creationist wingnut Kent Hovind. Since his father's imprisonment, Eric has taken over the running of his ministries. Despite having a slightly less annoying voice he's every bit as insane. He also shares his father's penchant for money-grabbing, but apparently not his stamina. Instead of Kent's rambling seminars, Eric treats you to 60-second-spots adorned with lavish CGI effects at the low, low price of only $9.95 per episode. [2] Hey, someone's got to pay off all those tax debts. Recently Hovind has decided to spread the Word to the atheistic liberal masses on YouTube, dispensing free nuggets of wisdom through his Creation Today series. Mr. Eric Hovind is also the winner of the 2012 Golden Crocoduck award, following his father's win of the first incarnation of the award in 2008. Dude could have handled it much better that is for sure... "chad, you ask a very good question...thank you for asking it in this forum. How do I know God exists, well that is easy, you and I are both here tonight to debate, how do you think we got here?" btw Chad, I am a Catholic, so I do not believe creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, so can you explain to me how things began? Are we to believe that two pieces of dust were farking when lightning struck? Basically Chad, I could be wrong, but creationism got things going and evolution took over.. btw Chad, before you dismiss my first argument, maybe you could think about why it is that almost every society known to man has given homage to a higher being.. Could the appreciation of "GOD" be built into our DNA much like survival and procreation? eraser8: gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Why? Serious question, by the way. I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand. Because God is a drunken hillbilly. What everyone fails to realize is that God got drunk one day and said to Cthulhu "Hold my beer and watch this!" as he proceeded to ignite a fart causing the big bang. mamoru nmrsnr: I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument. Yay, fun. :D These are the two most obvious ones. Actually, the most obvious flaw besides my brain shutting down while trying to follow that argument: 3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being.. "Assuming what I want to prove is already proven.." eraser8: In other words, science has shown that a god is unnecessary for our existence Science hasn't though (and correct me if I'm wrong on that one). We don't have an explanation for how something could come from nothing, nor can we fathom how something could have always been. gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. This is kinda where I am. I believe that "god" is like me setting off a batch of sea monkeys and just treating our existence like a trivial almost pet. Dimensio: Golden Crocoduck award I just discovered those videos recently and am now a huge fan. nmrsnr: Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient. Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life. I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this: 1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father). 2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists. 3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy) 4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence. 5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though). Your roommate is not the only arrogant theist who confuses certainty of an unsubstantiated claim with correctness. Sye Ten Bruggencate believes that he has invented this particular method of apologetics. Pocket Ninja: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol. I'll say. And since we all know how much of a fan the Left is now that "math" (since Saint Clinton invoked it at their convention) and "statistics" (since the Mainstream Media has annointed Saint Nate Silver as the Holy Crusader of Liberalism), here's a test they can do to see it for themselves. 1) Watch the video with pen and paper in hand. 2) Mark each time the little boy says "um" or "uh" or some other vocalized pause and each time the man does. 3) Tally up the scores and weep. See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science. And here's another fact: the higher pitched someone's voice gets in an argument, they more they know they're losing. Listen the video again, and now listen to their voice tones. Tell me who sounds like the frantic, defeated loser. This is how criminals are caught, people. The Mike LowELL/ Pocket Ninja singularity. reklamfox: only a total penis would give mankind the gift of free will, then punish us for all eternity for not using it exactly how he wants us to Freewill? What's that? There is no free will. eraser8: Perhaps I should have fleshed it out a little more. So, here goes: If the big bang occurred and life emerged and persisted and evolved in the way science has revealed to us, why is there a need for a god at all? To tell why it's so awe inspiringly (is that a word?) beautiful. To tell us why we love our mothers and remember fondly grandma even though she's been dead for 30 years. Isn't the addition of a god needlessly complicating the explanation of our existence? In other words, science has shown that a god is unnecessary for our existence...so, why insert a superfluous agent into the mix? That depends. If you consider your existence to be a grand extension of a complex chemical reaction, then God is an unnecessary complication. You are will return your mass and energy to the system and thermodynamics works. If you believe that we are greater than the sum of our parts, then God is a necessary factor in the equation. I believe the latter. It does not make the former untrue. I guess I'm agnostic because the realistic side of me sees no evidence of a god (at least in the sense that a mainstream religion would like me to). Still, I'd be willing to accept a higher power, should one poke its head into reality in an indisputible fashion. Unlikely. Anyway, as much as I prefer logic over faith, it's still obvious to me that these people will not change their minds under any circumstances. Religious belief has the home-field advantage of not having to rely upon logic, which is why it's not even worth trying to have a logical debate to convince them otherwise. Not that I'd even want to. It's only an issue for me when it's shoved down my throat. I could easily segue this into politics now, but I'll just leave it at that. strobe: Time is cubed When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 - major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth - known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube. log_jammin: Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter. because the atheists would spend all of their time telling the agnostic that he's really an atheist and he's just afraid to admit it. The creationist would spend all of their time telling the agnostic that he's really a christian and he's just afraid to admit it. the agnostic would spend all of their time rolling their eyes. No, an atheist would spend all of their time telling the agnostic that he's really an atheist because the "agnostic" doesn't understand the meaning of words. Being agnostic means believing one cannot have knowledge of something. Just about all atheists are agnostic, including someone who says it doesn't matter whether a god exists. One CAN be a gnostic atheist, which means they KNOW god doesn't exist, but I have never run into someone who says they know for a fact a god does not exist. In short, people who consider being agnostic a separate "faction" really only want to feel superior to others while looking foolish for not understanding things on both a semantic or philosophical level. The kid should have pointed out that he believes that '2+2=4' because it can be proven ... not because some delusional douch-bag says it is so. /but he's just a kid ... adapting to an opponent's argument is a bit advanced for an 11 year old. I am shocked nobody has brought up Descartes. This Hovind guy seems to have read Descartes, and then promptly forgotten what he meant, but remembered certain terms (God, certainty, mathematics), and tried to string them together by waving his arms. Painful viewing. MisterLoki: The Mike LowELL/ Pocket Ninja singularity. Well, that does it, the universe just reversed directions and is now pulling inwards. I WAS right, oscillating universe 1, big bang 0. Huck And Molly Ziegler: I don't even know what I know - how can I possibly know what I believe? Don't know much about history, don't know much biology, don't know much about a science book, don't know much about the French I took. Scientists are not out to prove there is no god, rather they are out to find scientific explanations for everything. Either god is beyond the rules of science and they will never figure him out, or he isn't, in which case scientists will explain him, or he doesn't exist. What frustrates fundamentalists is that science keeps finding scientific explanations for things that they had credited with being under the influence of a supernatural cause. It's the big game. Atheists are just paying attention to the score card, while fundamentalists keep looking up at the scoreboard saying, there is still time left. We can win this, even if it takes a miracle. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, how could we have an omnipotent god that wasn't totally corrupt? Smackledorfer: eraser8: In other words, science has shown that a god is unnecessary for our existence Science hasn't though (and correct me if I'm wrong on that one). We don't have an explanation for how something could come from nothing, nor can we fathom how something could have always been. I'm going to correct you because you're wrong: quantum field theory has demonstrated absolutely that something can come from nothing. cyberspacedout: Ed Finnerty: If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this? I am. It's called psychokinesis. Look it up. He can't look it up --- unless you make him. GBmanNC: No, an atheist would spend all of their time telling the agnostic that he's really an atheist because the "agnostic" doesn't understand the meaning of words. Being agnostic means believing one cannot have knowledge of something. Just about all atheists are agnostic, including someone who says it doesn't matter whether a god exists. One CAN be a gnostic atheist, which means they KNOW god doesn't exist, but I have never run into someone who says they know for a fact a god does not exist. Josh, I had no idea. thanks for enlightening me. josh? SevenizGud: reklamfox: only a total penis would give mankind the gift of free will, then punish us for all eternity for not using it exactly how he wants us to Freewill? What's that? There is no free will. So a large majority of us are born destined to be thrown into a lake of fire for all eternity by a dickhead God with a ruthless sense of humor, and there is nothing we can do about it? We have no choice in the matter? We as human beings have no control whatsoever over our lives, our thoughts and our actions? We're all just puppets on strings, living out our days until the moment God decides to smash our meaningless lives out of existence. Thats even worse! This Christian god is making it very hard to worship him. eraser8: gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Why? Serious question, by the way. I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand. To answer your question, at least for me: Because it's scary to think we're just here because of science. It's scary to know that you're going to die on day, your body is going to rot, and you have no soul; there is no Heaven; there will be no reuniting of loved ones passed. Once you're dead - that's it. Game over. Nothing more. And I'm not sure if scary is the word.. I think "disappointing" might be more appropriate. I'm a flip-flopper when it comes to religion. I want to believe in God because that's what's expected of me. And during the good times in life, I feel like there is a God. But there are times when I sit back and wonder how one invisible sky wizard can hurt/help billions of people at one time. And there are too many questions that go unanswered by churches in general about the book they preach about. When the shiat hits the fan, I truly don't believe there can be a God. I mean, we've all been dealt with pretty awful hands from time to time, but I don't buy into the whole "He's testing your faith" bullshiat. Why would a God kill a close family member - someone who absolutely 100% believes in Him with all their being - to test my faith? fark that noise, man. As I said earlier this week, my views on religion and God change with the wind. Some days I believe. There's no concrete reason why. Other days, I don't. *shrug* THE DEVIL MADE ME TYPE JOSH INSTEAD OF GOSH!!!! Scripture (loosely quoted) says: There is only one God, He created all things, and in Him there is no evil. So if that's true, where did evil come from? Can you make an argument that evil doesn't exist? propasaurus: Earguy: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol. I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot. Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room. That's one of the worst 'both sides are bad' I've ever seen. So when the kid asks him, "what do you mean" in an attempt to get him to clarify his point at about 2:30 in the video, he's not listening to the answer or trying to understand, just waiting to fire another shot? The kid was totally willing and did listen to a different opinion. Watch it again and pay attention to the amount of time the kid talks in relation to the adult. Did you even watch the video? The kid totally lets him ramble forever, then asks him questions. I'm 43 and I wouldn't have allowed him that much time to ramble incoherently. When he tried to buy more time by asking me my name again I would have told him he'd never be certain what my name was unless his God told him my name. Chaide: I guess I'm agnostic because the realistic side of me sees no evidence of a god (at least in the sense that a mainstream religion would like me to). Still, I'd be willing to accept a higher power, should one poke its head into reality in an indisputible fashion. Unlikely I've watched too much good sci-fi over the years so I would still be skeptical (in secret probably though, depending on the demeanor of the higher power that's poking their heads in). EX: something shows up, says "I'm god", ok, how do we know that this is really God? In Bablylon 5, [when kosh (a member of an advanced alien race) is revealed in his true form, people of different races see him differently (as a representation of their own god)]. So how can we be sure that it's a real god and not just some super powerful alien? Benevolent Misanthrope: Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life. Eric Hovind is the lesser spawn of a lesser religious idiot. nmrsnr: Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient. Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life. I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this: 1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father). 2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists. 3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy) 4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence. 5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though). I... I see the light...! And it is.. No light at all...? I've lost all faith in humanity. None of us are any better than our component parts. Therefore, there must be no God and by extension, no heart, no compassion... no such thing as humanity. Is that what you want to hear? :p eraser8: Smackledorfer: eraser8: In other words, science has shown that a god is unnecessary for our existence Science hasn't though (and correct me if I'm wrong on that one). We don't have an explanation for how something could come from nothing, nor can we fathom how something could have always been. I'm going to correct you because you're wrong: quantum field theory has demonstrated absolutely that something can come from nothing. I am no expert, but I have seen every episode of th Big Bang Theory. That seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics as I understand them. HoratioGates: Scientists are not out to prove there is no god, rather they are out to find scientific explanations for everything. Either god is beyond the rules of science and they will never figure him out, or he isn't, in which case scientists will explain him, or he doesn't exist. What frustrates fundamentalists is that science keeps finding scientific explanations for things that they had credited with being under the influence of a supernatural cause. It's the big game. Atheists are just paying attention to the score card, while fundamentalists keep looking up at the scoreboard saying, there is still time left. We can win this, even if it takes a miracle. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, how could we have an omnipotent god that wasn't totally corrupt? +1 And my gift to you all as I exit this thread: Theist: believes in one or more gods. Atheist: everyone else. This includes people who are unsure. Gnostic: believes that it can be known for sure that god(s) exists. Agnostic: believes that it can never be known for sure. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist AND either gnostic or agnostic. I'm a gnostic atheist. I believe you could know for sure if a god exists, but I don't know for sure that one exists, so I have no affirmative belief that there is a god and am thus an atheist. Obviously (heh) you can never know for sure that a god doesn't exist (given that a god by definition could certainly be as nebulous and hidden as it wanted), but unless you completely distrust your senses you could certainly meet god, have a conversation, watch a few miracles, and be enlightened :P When that happens to me I will become a theist. SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. Naw, hell has been in a cooling trend for the past 15 years. By the time the kid gets there it will probably have frozen over already. RedPhoenix122: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. But enough about the creationist. Thank God nobody mentioned the banana nightmare. Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter. Your username is fitting. gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Blasphemer! The Earth is only 6000 years old, as you should well know! \it started on a Tuesday \\around 4 in the afternoon squirrelflavoredyogurt: propasaurus: Earguy: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol. I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot. Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room. That's one of the worst 'both sides are bad' I've ever seen. So when the kid asks him, "what do you mean" in an attempt to get him to clarify his point at about 2:30 in the video, he's not listening to the answer or trying to understand, just waiting to fire another shot? The kid was totally willing and did listen to a different opinion. Watch it again and pay attention to the amount of time the kid talks in relation to the adult. Did you even watch the video? The kid totally lets him ramble forever, then asks him questions. I'm 43 and I wouldn't have allowed him that much time to ramble incoherently. When he tried to buy more time by asking me my name again I would have told him he'd never be certain what my name was unless his God told him my name. I think you're responding to the wrong guy. Rent Party: To tell why it's so awe inspiringly (is that a word?) beautiful. To tell us why we love our mothers and remember fondly grandma even though she's been dead for 30 years. All that can be explained by chemical reactions. It might lack the romanticism of religion...but, we can explain it. No god necessary. Rent Party: That depends. If you consider... I think this is where we have to part company. I don't think it matters what I consider (a better word would probably be "assume") to be true. If I choose to believe that "we are greater than the sum of our parts" then I'm trying to understand the universe by working backwards from a conclusion. In that case, I wouldn't be looking for the truth; I'd be looking for a way to justify my beliefs. Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? You can't prove that god exists. You can't prove he DOESN'T exist. All arguments are invalid at that point. Personally, I believe he does. But I don't believe on pushing my belief on others.I believe it's actually quite offensive to do so. /stupid christians are just as bad as stupid atheists Earguy: I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot. Of course he did not consider a second opinion. He is a liberal. Liberal is latin for "he who is smelly and poor". I can assure you that Eric Hovind has considered every side of every issue before accepting that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, and that it is not to be questioned. naughtyrev: Weak troll. You should've put more effort into supporting douchebag than calling a child who won a debate whiny. You would be wise to reread my post. In thirty years, it will be the world foundation for all academic studies. In fifty years, it will merge with the technological singularity and the singularity will declare me your king. This is not theory. This is inevitable. Pocket Ninja: See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science. And here's another fact: the higher pitched someone's voice gets in an argument, they more they know they're losing. Listen the video again, and now listen to their voice tones. Tell me who sounds like the frantic, defeated loser. This is absolutely correct. However, I think it is worth mentioning that liberals are actually using this to their advantage. One of the things that liberals now do before debates is inhale helium, in order to make their voice higher-pitched. Since they know their arguments are bogus, they will delegitimize their own failed arguments, which will actually endear people to the liberal position. I do not know if the child inhaled helium before this footage was taken, but we cannot discount the possibility. Kittypie070: Has Mike_LoWELL been freebasing Cheetos? His performance art is a mite lacking today. RoWRRR DoNt TaX MY CAt FUd ROWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR As an aside, has anyone going ever gone to TAM? I am thinking about going next year... Evil High Priest: gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Blasphemer! The Earth is only 6000 years old, as you should well know! \it started on a Tuesday \\around 4 in the afternoon Wrong, it was Sunday, Oct 21, 4004 B.C. about 9 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. This About That: I don't think creationist guy knows enough to state the question, but he seems to be saying that one can't prove God does not exist, which requires proving a negative, without knowing "everything", which would allow one to know that "everything" doesn't include God. Mr. Creationist conflates evasion and stopping the debate with with "winning". This is called an epistemological argument and philosophers have been using this for centuries. It's also bullshiat. gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. You sound deist. Yogimus: The best part about having faith is that it does not require constant validation through argument. Or thinking. Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? "Proof that god is everywhere" is my guess. Ed Finnerty: If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this? I am. Also, I feel really stupid saying that I don't believe in God. It sounds like I'm saying I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. I wouldn't say I don't believe in the tooth fairy, I would say there is no Tooth Fairy. I don't say I don't believe in God, I say there is no God. eraser8: I'm going to correct you because you're wrong: quantum field theory has demonstrated absolutely that something can come from nothing. As far as I was aware we could get SOMETHING from nothing, but we don't know if we could get everything from nothing (so perhaps I misspoke above) and we still can't get energy from nothing. So still no scientific explanation for how absolute nothing can create a big bang. But then I didn't take physics at the university level, so I could be quite behind and in the dark on these things. Yogimus: The best part about having faith is that it does not require constant validation through argument. While the fellow in the video may not have come across well - because he didn't - some people do fail to realize that 'faith' is the key word. Some have faith in the Lord, faith that God is the creator and faith that accepting Jesus as one's savior is the path to Heaven. Faith is a personal belief. Some folks choose to hold on firmly to a scientific theory. Those folks have faith in that scientific theory. A scientific theory that is man made opinion but not proven fact. Faith is a big word, so is theory. Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? They're probably just going to announce the presence of water, is my guess. kg2095: You are seriously funny. You aren't Larry David are you? I am the head of Tiny Irregular Screws Incorporated, the world's fifth-leading manufacturer of the rare-but-dangerous "exploding irregular screw", which responds to structural stress by exploding. I do not know why construction companies buy these things, but if they buy them, I will continue to make them. As long as they are of high quality, and the exploding screws continue to explode, there will be demand for ones that have not. Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? I had a pastor years ago who taught that the parable of the lost sheep could be interpreted to mean that there are other planets with life out there. But ours is the only one that went astray, and so we're the ones the shepherd had to come save. RedPhoenix122: Evil High Priest: gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Blasphemer! The Earth is only 6000 years old, as you should well know! \it started on a Tuesday \\around 4 in the afternoon Wrong, it was Sunday, Oct 21, 4004 B.C. about 9 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. And work on the Sabbath?! Trick question! The sabbath used to be saturday. But everything is sacred and traditional, so don't ever speak of it again. log_jammin: THE DEVIL MADE ME TYPE JOSH INSTEAD OF GOSH!!!! I'm telling Josh. And I think he'll be very hurt. Evil High Priest: RedPhoenix122: Evil High Priest: gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Blasphemer! The Earth is only 6000 years old, as you should well know! \it started on a Tuesday \\around 4 in the afternoon Wrong, it was Sunday, Oct 21, 4004 B.C. about 9 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. And work on the Sabbath?! Trick question! The sabbath used to be saturday. But everything is sacred and traditional, so don't ever speak of it again. Damn, I was hoping you'd get my reference. By the way, I'm wrong too. By almost a quarter of an hour. Arguing with a religious person who insists there is a god because they know there is a god will get you exactly nowhere. However, arguing with a non-religious person who insists there is no god because they know there is no god will get you exactly the same place. And that's pretty much where this thread will end up. At the end of the day it DOES NOT MATTER if there is a god or there is not a god; what DOES matter, however, is how people react when challenged about the existence or non-existence of a deity. There are and have always been people who accept the existence of a god and yet have drilled down to the finest points of science; there have been and are people who insist there is no god at all and yet behave as if some unknown force was driving them on as devoutly as if they believed in Jehovah. Atheism is not a prerequisite for hard-edged science and rationality; nor is religiousness a bar to scientific inquiry and skepticism. But the way people have been carrying on lately, it's going to become that way. Blindly rejecting religious thought simply BECAUSE it is religious is no more "open minded" than blindly rejecting scientific thought for the same reason. Gregor Mendel was a monk. So was Roger Bacon. So was Martin Luther. Darwin got his start as a Unitarian preacher. It's not the god part that makes people bad thinkers; it's whether or not they can accept the idea that there are other ways of thinking. And that's not unique to religion. lordargent: So how can we be sure that it's a real god and not just some super powerful alien? DisregardTheFollowing: Scripture (loosely quoted) says: There is only one God, He created all things, and in Him there is no evil. So if that's true, where did evil come from? Can you make an argument that evil doesn't exist? Actually, as far as I know, the Christian Bible never specifically says that there is only one god. In fact, there are a number of places where it seems to imply that there is more than one. Modern Christians seem to believe that there is only one god, but so far as I know there's no "proof" that this is true. What the Bible does say is that you should worship Jesus/Yaweh exclusively, or at least "above" all other gods. Islam, on the other hand, is the Abrahamic religion that asserts that there is only one god. And your question is basically the famous "problem of evil." KrispyKritter: Yogimus: The best part about having faith is that it does not require constant validation through argument. While the fellow in the video may not have come across well - because he didn't - some people do fail to realize that 'faith' is the key word. Some have faith in the Lord, faith that God is the creator and faith that accepting Jesus as one's savior is the path to Heaven. Faith is a personal belief. Some folks choose to hold on firmly to a scientific theory. Those folks have faith in that scientific theory. A scientific theory that is man made opinion but not proven fact. Faith is a big word, so is theory. You don't know what "scientific theory" means. Smackledorfer: eraser8: I'm going to correct you because you're wrong: quantum field theory has demonstrated absolutely that something can come from nothing. As far as I was aware we could get SOMETHING from nothing, but we don't know if we could get everything from nothing (so perhaps I misspoke above) and we still can't get energy from nothing. So still no scientific explanation for how absolute nothing can create a big bang. But then I didn't take physics at the university level, so I could be quite behind and in the dark on these things. If you're really interested, a good primer on the subject is Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design. It's completely accessible to the layman (otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to understand it). Smackledorfer: eraser8: In other words, science has shown that a god is unnecessary for our existence Science hasn't though (and correct me if I'm wrong on that one). We don't have an explanation for how something could come from nothing, nor can we fathom how something could have always been. And we've been scientifically studying this topic for how long? Tough questions can take a long time to answer. That's no reason to throw your hands up and proclaim that God dunnit. RedPhoenix122: Evil High Priest: RedPhoenix122: Evil High Priest: gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Blasphemer! The Earth is only 6000 years old, as you should well know! \it started on a Tuesday \\around 4 in the afternoon Wrong, it was Sunday, Oct 21, 4004 B.C. about 9 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. And work on the Sabbath?! Trick question! The sabbath used to be saturday. But everything is sacred and traditional, so don't ever speak of it again. Damn, I was hoping you'd get my reference. By the way, I'm wrong too. By almost a quarter of an hour. Shomer farking Shabbos. lordargent: Chaide: I guess I'm agnostic because the realistic side of me sees no evidence of a god (at least in the sense that a mainstream religion would like me to). Still, I'd be willing to accept a higher power, should one poke its head into reality in an indisputible fashion. Unlikely I've watched too much good sci-fi over the years so I would still be skeptical (in secret probably though, depending on the demeanor of the higher power that's poking their heads in). EX: something shows up, says "I'm god", ok, how do we know that this is really God? In Bablylon 5, [when kosh (a member of an advanced alien race) is revealed in his true form, people of different races see him differently (as a representation of their own god)]. So how can we be sure that it's a real god and not just some super powerful alien? [www.jennysb5world.3owl.com image 175x242] And this is a situation I've also considered, believe it or not. When it comes down to it, I just can't be bothered to convince people why I believe the things I do. To me, it's perfectly logical to be unsure, as there's always more to determined. At the same time, it's not very logical for me to let those insecurities outweigh the cold, logical facts of science. To me, being agnostic is simply being open to suggestion. Not open to manipulation. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Shomer farking Shabbos. Stop hijacking my Good Omens reference with your Big Lebowski reference. reklamfox: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. That's what always made God so unappealing to me... only a total penis would give mankind the gift of free will, then punish us for all eternity for not using it exactly how he wants us to. That's just a cruel joke and it makes me think that the Christian god is a total shiathead for setting us all up for failure. /Also, I'm pretty sure its cheating if your rule book is totally unclear //Slashies Free will is from the Devil. Adam and Eve were blissfully stupid until that snake made them eat the apple. Then God jumped out from behind a bush and yelled "Gotcha!" and kicked their asses to the curb. You'd think eating apples would be a sin The All-Powerful Atheismo: log_jammin: THE DEVIL MADE ME TYPE JOSH INSTEAD OF GOSH!!!! I'm telling Josh. And I think he'll be very hurt. fine. Just keep Drake out of it. The thing is if a god does exist it obviously doesnt give a fark about us (see jersey shore) Chaide: I guess I'm agnostic because the realistic side of me sees no evidence of a god (at least in the sense that a mainstream religion would like me to). Still, I'd be willing to accept a higher power, should one poke its head into reality in an indisputible fashion. Unlikely. That's not agnosticism. That's just being pragmatic. Mega Steve: reklamfox: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. That's what always made God so unappealing to me... only a total penis would give mankind the gift of free will, then punish us for all eternity for not using it exactly how he wants us to. That's just a cruel joke and it makes me think that the Christian god is a total shiathead for setting us all up for failure. /Also, I'm pretty sure its cheating if your rule book is totally unclear //Slashies Free will is from the Devil. Adam and Eve were blissfully stupid until that snake made them eat the apple. Then God jumped out from behind a bush and yelled "Gotcha!" and kicked their asses to the curb. You'd think eating apples would be a sin So all this video proves is that some of us never moved past that blissfully stupid phase... /I'll be here all night man metaphysical: The thing is if a god does exist it obviously doesnt give a fark about us (see jersey shore) You mean the show, or the damage from Sandy? I grew up in a christian school, these people don't ever internalize situations like this. They simply write it off as a poor child who has been influenced by parents who don't believe and they corrupted his mind. To them, their illogic is perfectly logical. It's sad. They effect many children who become adults and in turn effect their children - all with lies. It will just take time, they have thousands of years and a tradition of fear and death behind them. We just need more time - humanity will realize it's fault. Gyrfalcon: Arguing with a religious person who insists there is a god because they know there is a god will get you exactly nowhere. However, arguing with a non-religious person who insists there is no god because they know there is no god will get you exactly the same place. And that's pretty much where this thread will end up. At the end of the day it DOES NOT MATTER if there is a god or there is not a god; what DOES matter, however, is how people react when challenged about the existence or non-existence of a deity. There are and have always been people who accept the existence of a god and yet have drilled down to the finest points of science; there have been and are people who insist there is no god at all and yet behave as if some unknown force was driving them on as devoutly as if they believed in Jehovah. Atheism is not a prerequisite for hard-edged science and rationality; nor is religiousness a bar to scientific inquiry and skepticism. But the way people have been carrying on lately, it's going to become that way. Blindly rejecting religious thought simply BECAUSE it is religious is no more "open minded" than blindly rejecting scientific thought for the same reason. Gregor Mendel was a monk. So was Roger Bacon. So was Martin Luther. Darwin got his start as a Unitarian preacher. It's not the god part that makes people bad thinkers; it's whether or not they can accept the idea that there are other ways of thinking. And that's not unique to religion. Not unique, but pretty common. \so was Giordano Bruno \\monks come in all flavors No Blue Gargoyle? We either got smart of gave up. We gave up. log_jammin: Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? "Proof that god is everywhere" is my guess. I guess that's reasonable. But it's not very satisfying. propasaurus: Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? I had a pastor years ago who taught that the parable of the lost sheep could be interpreted to mean that there are other planets with life out there. But ours is the only one that went astray, and so we're the ones the shepherd had to come save. Now THAT'S satisfying! Spiritual, emotional, hopeful, it's got everything. I like this one. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? They're probably just going to announce the presence of water, is my guess. Perhaps, but they've been saying the news will be "Earth-shaking" and we already know there is ice. Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. We are the ones looking on with bemusement at both the religious and the atheists. Mike_LowELL: RoWRRR DoNt TaX MY CAt FUd ROWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Whoa-K, now I know for a stone cold FACT you been freebasing the Cheetos. LOLz. Mike_LowELL: You would be wise to reread my post. In thirty years, it will be the world foundation for all academic studies. In fifty years, it will merge with the technological singularity and the singularity will declare me your king. Sorry, pal, I already have an Emperor. Would you like to mainline a few of my hallucinogenic jellybeans? They're Reaganistic. Notabunny: Perhaps, but they've been saying the news will be "Earth-shaking" They discovered a copy of Firefly - Season 2??? Notabunny: Perhaps, but they've been saying the news will be "Earth-shaking" and we already know there is ice. Ruins of an ancient civilization, that destroyed their planet before sending the survivors to the nearest habitable planet. Chaide: lordargent: Chaide: I guess I'm agnostic because the realistic side of me sees no evidence of a god (at least in the sense that a mainstream religion would like me to). Still, I'd be willing to accept a higher power, should one poke its head into reality in an indisputible fashion. Unlikely I've watched too much good sci-fi over the years so I would still be skeptical (in secret probably though, depending on the demeanor of the higher power that's poking their heads in). EX: something shows up, says "I'm god", ok, how do we know that this is really God? In Bablylon 5, [when kosh (a member of an advanced alien race) is revealed in his true form, people of different races see him differently (as a representation of their own god)]. So how can we be sure that it's a real god and not just some super powerful alien? [www.jennysb5world.3owl.com image 175x242] And this is a situation I've also considered, believe it or not. When it comes down to it, I just can't be bothered to convince people why I believe the things I do. To me, it's perfectly logical to be unsure, as there's always more to determined. At the same time, it's not very logical for me to let those insecurities outweigh the cold, logical facts of science. To me, being agnostic is simply being open to suggestion proof. Not open to manipulation. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Notabunny: Perhaps, but they've been saying the news will be "Earth-shaking" They discovered a copy of Firefly - Season 2??? They found Iraq's WMD's? DisregardTheFollowing: Scripture (loosely quoted) says: There is only one God, He created all things, and in Him there is no evil. So if that's true, where did evil come from? Can you make an argument that evil doesn't exist? And just how did Satan revolt against God? Angels do not possess free will. Only humans have been given that gift/burden by God. Ed Grubermann: Chaide: I guess I'm agnostic because the realistic side of me sees no evidence of a god (at least in the sense that a mainstream religion would like me to). Still, I'd be willing to accept a higher power, should one poke its head into reality in an indisputible fashion. Unlikely. That's not agnosticism. That's just being pragmatic. Not calling you out with the statement I'm about to make, but hear me out. This is why I don't care for religious discussions, or at least where they end up. People are more concerned with the label, than they are the thoughts behind them. There's much more to the beliefs I hold than a single word. Gyrfalcon: At the end of the day it DOES NOT MATTER if there is a god or there is not a god; Maybe not at the end of the day, but certainly at the end of my days. /I'm kinda hoping I'm wrong about no god, or at least wrong about no afterlife. Gyrfalcon: Blindly rejecting religious thought simply BECAUSE it is religious This is where I have to seriously disagree, and maybe I'm just not reading you correctly. I can certainly reject any line of thought that says "X is bad/good because god". I can certainly reject any line of thought that says "X is bad/good because my parents told me so". Both of those are inherently religious thinking. Now, X could be murder, or X could be helping your fellow man. Rejecting those concepts doesn't mean I think murder is good, nor helping one another bad. What I reject is the religious reasoning behind it. As you say, someone who is highly religious can certainly be capable of making scientific breakthroughs. What you won't see him do is sit down with the bible for a few hours of reading and then submit any thoughts he had as data for a scientific discourse. So I guess maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "religious thought" because if the only basis for a thought is religious, then I'm going to reject it and rightly so. But if someone presents a thought with reasoning BOTH religious and non-religious, then I will ignore the religious side of it and look at the non-religious reasoning behind it. I doubt you are saying that I shouldn't reject a statement like "god farts lightning bolts and that's where they come from" but are you saying that if someone says "god farts and that creates a path of least resistance for energy to come from a cloud down to the ground" I should be spending even a minor amount of thought pondering flatulent deities? eraser8: Smackledorfer: eraser8: I'm going to correct you because you're wrong: quantum field theory has demonstrated absolutely that something can come from nothing. As far as I was aware we could get SOMETHING from nothing, but we don't know if we could get everything from nothing (so perhaps I misspoke above) and we still can't get energy from nothing. So still no scientific explanation for how absolute nothing can create a big bang. But then I didn't take physics at the university level, so I could be quite behind and in the dark on these things. If you're really interested, a good primer on the subject is Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design. [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300] It's completely accessible to the layman (otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to understand it). I might have to. I'm going to midnights soon and plan to get some reading in. RedPhoenix122: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Notabunny: Perhaps, but they've been saying the news will be "Earth-shaking" They discovered a copy of Firefly - Season 2??? They found Iraq's WMD's? They found the original film reel of Song of the South? ciberido: RedPhoenix122: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. But enough about the creationist. Thank God nobody mentioned the banana nightmare. Did you know Comfort tried the same thing with the apple? I've always wondered how he explains the macadamia nut. reklamfox: So a large majority of us are born destined to be thrown into a lake of fire for all eternity by a dickhead God with a ruthless sense of humor, and there is nothing we can do about it? Nope, just the ones destined to be pieces of shiat, like Esau. RedPhoenix122: Notabunny: Perhaps, but they've been saying the news will be "Earth-shaking" and we already know there is ice. Ruins of an ancient civilization, that destroyed their planet before sending the survivors to the nearest habitable planet. ThrobblefootSpectre: Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. We are the ones looking on with bemusement at both the religious and the atheists. Meanwhile, some of us actually know what "atheist" means. Chaide: Not calling you out with the statement I'm about to make, but hear me out. This is why I don't care for religious discussions, or at least where they end up. People are more concerned with the label, than they are the thoughts behind them. There's much more to the beliefs I hold than a single word. I can understand it is a complex issue not easily simplified down to a single label. But from the brief description you do generally sound like a soft atheist. An agnostic doesn't think the concept of god is defined and therefor would not hope for or be interested in the idea of one being discovered, as you said you are. It is an interesting difference between atheists and agnostics. It's perfectly valid (and common) for an atheist to say, "I think it would be cool if there really was a god." Whereas an agnostic thinks that idea is as silly as asserting there already is a god. ciberido: DisregardTheFollowing: Scripture (loosely quoted) says: There is only one God, He created all things, and in Him there is no evil. So if that's true, where did evil come from? Can you make an argument that evil doesn't exist? Actually, as far as I know, the Christian Bible never specifically says that there is only one god. In fact, there are a number of places where it seems to imply that there is more than one. Modern Christians seem to believe that there is only one god, but so far as I know there's no "proof" that this is true. What the Bible does say is that you should worship Jesus/Yaweh exclusively, or at least "above" all other gods. Islam, on the other hand, is the Abrahamic religion that asserts that there is only one god. And your question is basically the famous "problem of evil." I Googled it, 1st John chapter 5 says that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness. My phrasing was off. I find it very interesting that you pointed out that the Bible implies the existence of other gods. I've clearly got more reading to do. I did not know about the famous "problem of evil". Does that mean I can't turn a profit/Prophet for arriving at that theory independently? /This is fun Chaide: People are more concerned with the label, than they are the thoughts behind them. Yet if we don't understand the words being used then we end up with dueling strawman competitions. At this point, in every single real life conversation I have that involves me saying I'm an atheist (and no I don't seek these discussions out, but rather at some points in political discussions the religious bring these things up) I have to stop and set definitions for our discussions. Without them I end up being told I believe all sorts of shiat that I don't, simply because they don't know wtf an atheist is. Now, the average person I talk to then corrects me and says "no, you're actually an agnostic" so you might say 'hey smacks, why don't you just tell people you are agnostic'? Well, because then the other 30% of people who do know what words mean would think I'm something I"m not. If I have to explain either way, I might as well do so correctly, no? And with that I've really got to go to bed. Good night all, and god bless (pending existence of said god) KrispyKritter: Those folks have faith in that scientific theory. No, no they do not. That have confidence in a theory based on the ability of that theory to withstand scrutiny and testing. A scientific theory that is man made opinion but not proven fact. Oh, Jesus. Where to even start on this that doesn't begin with "Damn, you're an idiot!"? No, a theory is not an opinion. You really ought to learn what a theory is before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. Smackledorfer: eanwhile, some of us actually know what "atheist" means. And some of us know that one can be agnostic and not atheist. Smackledorfer: Maybe not at the end of the day, but certainly at the end of my days. /I'm kinda hoping I'm wrong about no god, or at least wrong about no afterlife. That statement right there explains why so much of the world holds some type of religious belief in the afterlife. Because it is painful and uncomfortable for us to think that our loved ones and ourselves cease to exist at the moment of death. It's not nice to think about this as being the only life we get, and when we die we fade into nothingness. The mind has a hard time wrapping it's self around the concept of "nothingness". It's like trying to imagine what life was like pre-birth. We don't like to think that we will never see our friends and family again when we all die, it's much nicer and more pleasant to imagine that we all live forever in some type of magical place with all the people we've ever loved surrounding us. It doesn't make any sense at all to believe this way, and there certainly isn't any evidence to back it up, but it sure makes us feel better. We don't have to be as scared of death if we don't believe it's truly the end. That's all religious dogma really is, a way of making us feel better about death. If we go on for all eternity after we shuffle off the mortal coil, then there is nothing to fear and we are no longer uncomfortable. Problem solved. This is a simple explanation that I believe holds true for the afterlife dogma of all religions. Arthur Jumbles: The creationist's premise is that unless you know everything you can't be sure that anything is true unless someone who knows everything tells you so. As such, since I don't know everything I can't be sure that God exists unless It tells me so Itself. I assume the creationist believes that God communicates with people through the Bible. However, given the creationist's premise that we can't be sure of anything without knowing everything there is no way for us to know whether the Bible is actually the Word of God. They can try being Covert-Christianstm. ThrobblefootSpectre: And some of us know that one can be agnostic and not atheist. I guess I read more into your early statement then you meant to say. I withdraw my snark. ThrobblefootSpectre: We are the ones looking on with bemusement at both the religious and the atheists. ThrobblefootSpectre: Smackledorfer: eanwhile, some of us actually know what "atheist" means. And some of us know that one can be agnostic and not atheist. Of course. You could be an agnostic theist. They're not all that rare. Kittypie070: Whoa-K, now I know for a stone cold FACT you been freebasing the Cheetos. LOLz. I have never smoked, inhaled, ingested, or injected any drugs in my life, because freedom does not require any of those things. Freedom is all around you. Feel the freedom. Freedom is free. Kittypie070: Would you like to mainline a few of my hallucinogenic jellybeans? They're Reaganistic. My parents told me never to take candy from liberals. Smackledorfer: Good night all, and god bless (pending existence of said god) That sums things up quite nicely! But I do understand where you're coming from. I suppose I just like to err on the side of ambiguity, for what I consider one of the most ambiguous topics imaginable. And just how did Satan revolt against God? Angels do not possess free will. Only humans have been given that gift/burden by God. Exactly. Growing up Catholic, I was always taught that Satan was jealous that only humans had free will, where angels were not granted that gift. So how did the revolution come about? KrispyKritter: Faith is a big word, so is theory. Big words tend to have meanings, of which you apparently aren't aware NicoFinn: Arthur Jumbles: The creationist's premise is that unless you know everything you can't be sure that anything is true unless someone who knows everything tells you so. As such, since I don't know everything I can't be sure that God exists unless It tells me so Itself. I assume the creationist believes that God communicates with people through the Bible. However, given the creationist's premise that we can't be sure of anything without knowing everything there is no way for us to know whether the Bible is actually the Word of God. [2.bp.blogspot.com image 476x293] That other guy is a lying bastard. DisregardTheFollowing: Exactly. Growing up Catholic, I was always taught that Satan was jealous that only humans had free will, where angels were not granted that gift. So how did the revolution come about? obviously god made him do it. so the question then becomes "why?" A better argument for theists is with faith rather than proof, otherwise the debate is lost. By using examples of faith in everyday things, such as the value of money, in people to do right, and in one's self to accomplish something, the opponent can then be manipulated to understand one's faith in other things they cannot prove such as the creator of all things. i'm an atheist and devil's advocate, but logic is hard to fight. log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: Exactly. Growing up Catholic, I was always taught that Satan was jealous that only humans had free will, where angels were not granted that gift. So how did the revolution come about? obviously god made him do it. so the question then becomes "why?" gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. I went to Catholic school. We had a PhD. AP biology teacher. He told us on the first day of class "the more I learn about biology, the more certain I am that God exists." He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance. It was my first experience with the "watch in the sea" hypothetical philosophers argue about. We learned all about evolution, etc. And it was all the same biology that you would learn at a state school. Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes, but they are pro-science and pro-evolution, and shouldn't be lumped together with the other Christians who refuse to believe in science. muck1969: but logic is hard to fight. libertarians tend to do very well at it. The All-Powerful Atheismo: muck1969: but logic is hard to fight. libertarians tend to do very well at it. example? eraser8: You could be an agnostic theist. They're not all that rare. Yes, probably more common than hard theists. HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: muck1969: but logic is hard to fight. libertarians tend to do very well at it. example? RON PAUL! HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: muck1969: but logic is hard to fight. libertarians tend to do very well at it. example? This is one example of how they do it. This is very, very simple. Only people write books. People that claim to speak or write or interpret the word of god are lying to you. Only people write books. It's that simple. Of course I'm using reason, which is completely ineffective against faith. DAMN THESE POWERLESS FACTS!!!! DisregardTheFollowing: I find it very interesting that you pointed out that the Bible implies the existence of other gods. I've clearly got more reading to do. I did not know about the famous "problem of evil". Does that mean I can't turn a profit/Prophet for arriving at that theory independently? Well, it's debated, but: The Bible Confirms Other Gods Other Gods How Many Gods Does God Say There Are? These are some of the arguments for and against. HBK: He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance. They guy never heard of mollusks? They have almost every step in the development of the humanish (the eyes of the squid is actually better than ours) eye. Everything from spots of light-sensitive cells on skin to cups of said, to "pinhole camera" eyes, to eyes like ours. Here's the thing about the "appearance of design" argument: why do all chordates have the same eye, but non-chordates have several variations of eye? And, as I pointed out above, they have an eye that is better built than the eyes of all chordates. The correct answer is that there's no scientific proof for God. You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity - but God still has to be believed in, if for no other reason than you can't be sure -whose- God created things. The God of Christianity is massively different from the God of Islam, for instance. The "Jesus" of Islam is more or less identical to the Antichrist of Christianity. Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. It's a just a religion that replaces God with self. Atheists are some of the least tolerant people there are when it comes to other religions, and atheist nations have historically killed more people than all religious wars combined. HBK: gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. I went to Catholic school. We had a PhD. AP biology teacher. He told us on the first day of class "the more I learn about biology, the more certain I am that God exists." He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance. It was my first experience with the "watch in the sea" hypothetical philosophers argue about. We learned all about evolution, etc. And it was all the same biology that you would learn at a state school. Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes, but they are pro-science and pro-evolution, and shouldn't be lumped together with the other Christians who refuse to believe in science. But, but I thought all forms of Christianity taught backward theories! If I may quote South Park: Mr Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this... In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this... Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! But in all seriousness, I agree with you about Catholics. My mother is Catholic, and my brief exposure to the Catholic Church as a child led me to believe that they were the most sane of the lot. Approves of that answer. pnkgtr: [www.mediabistro.com image 198x226] Approves of that answer. Speaking of hot as hell.... Ed Grubermann: ciberido: RedPhoenix122: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. But enough about the creationist. Thank God nobody mentioned the banana nightmare. Did you know Comfort tried the same thing with the apple? I've always wondered how he explains the macadamia nut. Link A tiny bit of NSFW language. HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes, but they are pro-science and pro-evolution, and shouldn't be lumped together with the other Christians who refuse to believe in science. you know what the best part is? Fundies don't consider Catholics to be Christians! French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) j0ndas: The correct answer is that there's no scientific proof for God. You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity - but God still has to be believed in, if for no other reason than you can't be sure -whose- God created things. The God of Christianity is massively different from the God of Islam, for instance. The "Jesus" of Islam is more or less identical to the Antichrist of Christianity. Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. It's a just a religion that replaces God with self. Atheists are some of the least tolerant people there are when it comes to other religions, and atheist nations have historically killed more people than all religious wars combined. log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: Exactly. Growing up Catholic, I was always taught that Satan was jealous that only humans had free will, where angels were not granted that gift. So how did the revolution come about? obviously god made him do it. so the question then becomes "why?" It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind. That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil? log_jammin: HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes, but they are pro-science and pro-evolution, and shouldn't be lumped together with the other Christians who refuse to believe in science. you know what the best part is? Fundies don't consider Catholics to be Christians! They were Christian before it was cool The All-Powerful Atheismo: HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: muck1969: but logic is hard to fight. libertarians tend to do very well at it. example? [catmacros.files.wordpress.com image 640x480] This is one example of how they do it. Ah, so you make bald statements with no evidence, even anecdotal, to support them? Humorous cat pictures do not count as argument. Mike_LowELL: Kittypie070: Would you like to mainline a few of my hallucinogenic jellybeans? They're Reaganistic. My parents told me never to take candy from liberals. REAAAAGAAAAAN. Reagan Reagan REAGAN!! See? I'm not dead and I didn't asplode into flames upon invoking The Reagan. They're freedom flavoured hallucinogenic jellybeans. You're really missing out. HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: muck1969: but logic is hard to fight. libertarians tend to do very well at it. example? [catmacros.files.wordpress.com image 640x480] This is one example of how they do it. Ah, so you make bald statements with no evidence, even anecdotal, to support them? Humorous cat pictures do not count as argument. Lol, Of course I have evidence, anecdotal as well. However, you're not worth a stupid argument. Nor is this thread about that. If you are libertarian... and particularly, if you think the government should eliminate any of the following: FDA, USDA, ED, EPA, etc... I weep for you. I do not "argue" with you. planes: French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) Which was poorly thought out. God will know you are faking belief and send you yo hell accordingly. DisregardTheFollowing: It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind. That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil? I remember being really really confused about the jesus thing as a kid. specifically, "why did jesus have to die for our sins? couldn't god just do something about or sins instead of letting his son die? wait, he didn't let him die, he made him die." about the time I stared wondering about that I decided I'd rather sleep in on sundays. j0ndas: You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity You could say that, if you were as sentient as a fern. The All-Powerful Atheismo: They were Christian before it was cool then they made it cool by papal decree log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind. That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil? I remember being really really confused about the jesus thing as a kid. specifically, "why did jesus have to die for our sins? couldn't god just do something about or sins instead of letting his son die? wait, he didn't let him die, he made him die." about the time I stared wondering about that I decided I'd rather sleep in on sundays. I was tripped up very early on by the logical nonsense of the bible and about 80% of the things that occur in it, especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Ah, so you make bald statements with no evidence, even anecdotal, to support them? Humorous cat pictures do not count as argument. Lol, Of course I have evidence, anecdotal as well. However, you're not worth a stupid argument. Nor is this thread about that. haha, you're so full of shiat you can't even make an argument. /hotlinked log_jammin: The All-Powerful Atheismo: They were Christian before it was cool then they made it cool by papal decree The original ironic hat They pitted Eric Hovind against a sixth-grader!? That wasn′t fair! Hovind isn′t even smarter than a fifth-grader, nor even this four-year-old for that matter! HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Ah, so you make bald statements with no evidence, even anecdotal, to support them? Humorous cat pictures do not count as argument. Lol, Of course I have evidence, anecdotal as well. However, you're not worth a stupid argument. Nor is this thread about that. [24.media.tumblr.com image 450x311] haha, you're so full of shiat you can't even make an argument. /hotlinked Hilarious. "Argue with me or you're wrong." fark off. Holy sh*te! I had to stop watching that. I KNOW it was making me dumber AND wasting my time. Feral_and_Preposterous: Holy sh*te! I had to stop watching that. I KNOW it was making me dumber AND wasting my time. And then you posted in a Fark religion thread. I guess you didn't learn your lesson. The All-Powerful Atheismo: log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind. That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil? I remember being really really confused about the jesus thing as a kid. specifically, "why did jesus have to die for our sins? couldn't god just do something about or sins instead of letting his son die? wait, he didn't let him die, he made him die." about the time I stared wondering about that I decided I'd rather sleep in on sundays. I was tripped up very early on by the logical nonsense of the bible and about 80% of the things that occur in it, especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid. Jews and Catholics both recognize most of the Old Testament, and especially Genesis to be allegories. Like Aesop's Fables. planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195] French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) I find Pascal's wager offensive for two reasons: 1: It is an argument from fear. 2: It assumes that God is a complete moron who can't see into our hearts. HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind. That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil? I remember being really really confused about the jesus thing as a kid. specifically, "why did jesus have to die for our sins? couldn't god just do something about or sins instead of letting his son die? wait, he didn't let him die, he made him die." about the time I stared wondering about that I decided I'd rather sleep in on sundays. I was tripped up very early on by the logical nonsense of the bible and about 80% of the things that occur in it, especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid. Jews and Catholics both recognize most of the Old Testament, and especially Genesis to be allegories. Like Aesop's Fables. Really? All of them? Kid: do you have proof that god exists? Db: yes! Kid: describe it. Db: how can you question god's existence if you don't know everything? Kid: that's valid and I haven't asked you to disprove my evidence that god doesn't exist. What is your evidence that god exists? Db: look at it this way: if my beliefs are true and god is the source of everything, then your own existence is proof that god exists. Now tell me how my theory works without the existence of god. Kid: that line of reasoning is circular and common among Christians. Db: see? I totally win! Your dad is the douchebag! Ed Grubermann: planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195] French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) I find Pascal's wager offensive for two reasons: 1: It is an argument from fear. 2: It assumes that God is a complete moron who can't see into our hearts. Ahh but of God really CAN'T see into our hearts (maybe he's only semipotent?) then it sounds like a pretty sweet argument Feral_and_Preposterous: Holy sh*te! I had to stop watching that. I KNOW it was making me dumber AND wasting my time. What, fark? Yeah. *sigh* The All-Powerful Atheismo: especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid. Genesis and Exodus were just "stories" to me. I never, even as a kid, took them to be literal. at least I don't remember doing so. but my family was never very religious. I was the only one who went to the church down the block as a kid. and even then it was only for about a year I think. ciberido: DisregardTheFollowing: I find it very interesting that you pointed out that the Bible implies the existence of other gods. I've clearly got more reading to do. I did not know about the famous "problem of evil". Does that mean I can't turn a profit/Prophet for arriving at that theory independently? Well, it's debated, but: The Bible Confirms Other Gods Other Gods How Many Gods Does God Say There Are? These are some of the arguments for and against. All that those scriptures say to me is that the pop culture God worshiped today is every bit as imaginary as any other god that has been worshiped throughout history. The Bible dismissing every other god just makes the argument that there is no God stronger. Gyrfalcon: Arguing with a religious person who insists there is a god because they know there is a god will get you exactly nowhere. However, arguing with a non-religious person who insists there is no god because they know there is no god will get you exactly the same place. And that's pretty much where this thread will end up. At the end of the day it DOES NOT MATTER if there is a god or there is not a god; what DOES matter, however, is how people react when challenged about the existence or non-existence of a deity. There are and have always been people who accept the existence of a god and yet have drilled down to the finest points of science; there have been and are people who insist there is no god at all and yet behave as if some unknown force was driving them on as devoutly as if they believed in Jehovah. Atheism is not a prerequisite for hard-edged science and rationality; nor is religiousness a bar to scientific inquiry and skepticism. But the way people have been carrying on lately, it's going to become that way. Blindly rejecting religious thought simply BECAUSE it is religious is no more "open minded" than blindly rejecting scientific thought for the same reason. Gregor Mendel was a monk. So was Roger Bacon. So was Martin Luther. Darwin got his start as a Unitarian preacher. It's not the god part that makes people bad thinkers; it's whether or not they can accept the idea that there are other ways of thinking. And that's not unique to religion. Thank you for distilling the essence of what I've been trying to say on Fark all evening.. that is all. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Hilarious. "Argue with me or you're wrong." fark off. Wow, now I'm convinced you're an idiot. You made a pointless political statement in a religion thread. You couldn't make an argument to support your statement. When people make odd statements in threads, I am legitimately interested in why they believe that and especially why they would shiat it in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread. So go fark yourself or stop threadshiatting with your bullshiat political statements that: have nothing to do with the thread; and that you cannot muster a single argument to support. HBK: Jews and Catholics both recognize most of the Old Testament, and especially Genesis to be allegories. Like Aesop's Fables It's funny how the number of allegories expand along with scientific knowledge. Just imagine if it was discovered that the world really is6000 years old and created in six days. Would these "allegory" people be all, "Damn. I really thought that was an allegory! Now I'll have to revise my beliefs!" Or would they all say, "See! The Word of God TRUE!" I think we all know the answer is that it will never be discovered that the world really is 6000 years old. But just for fun, try to imagine. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Feral_and_Preposterous: Holy sh*te! I had to stop watching that. I KNOW it was making me dumber AND wasting my time. And then you posted in a Fark religion thread. I guess you didn't learn your lesson. No, this is only a waste of time. From time to time I do learn things here. And the flames amuse me. If some Farker would have been there laying into that guy I think I would have watched it twice. log_jammin: The All-Powerful Atheismo: especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid. Genesis and Exodus were just "stories" to me. I never, even as a kid, took them to be literal. at least I don't remember doing so. but my family was never very religious. I was the only one who went to the church down the block as a kid. and even then it was only for about a year I think. If only the inanity stopped in those two books. Logical absurdity abounds. Then one might well say "well they are just allegories" to which I would say, if you reduce everything in the book relating to god to an allegory or a moral, then that implies that there is no god, just stories about god. Which is fine, but then I could write a book about a magical fairy named Biggles who says "just be nice to each other" and it would be just as true as the bible. log_jammin: Genesis and Exodus were just "stories" to me. I never, even as a kid, took them to be literal. at least I don't remember doing so. Yeah, taking much of the bible literally is like trying to take Aesop's fables literally. If you listen to a fable and come away thinking, "But wait, that's not logical. Foxes can't talk", then the entire point had probably passed far over your head. Once I understand 2+2=4, I no longer have to believe 2+2=4. Once I understand 2+2=4, it is impossible for me to believe 2+2=5, regardless of the source, the peer pressure, the emotional and social torture, or whatever else you want to use to make me believe it. The All-Powerful Atheismo: HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind. That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil? I remember being really really confused about the jesus thing as a kid. specifically, "why did jesus have to die for our sins? couldn't god just do something about or sins instead of letting his son die? wait, he didn't let him die, he made him die." about the time I stared wondering about that I decided I'd rather sleep in on sundays. I was tripped up very early on by the logical nonsense of the bible and about 80% of the things that occur in it, especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid. Jews and Catholics both recognize most of the Old Testament, and especially Genesis to be allegories. Like Aesop's Fables. Really? All of them? All of what? All of the Jews? I have no idea. All of the Catholics? Then yes, if they are true Catholics. All of the stories? Then no. Catholic dogma does back some of its stupid rules on the Old Testament- such as the anti-gay stuff and the anti-Onanism thing. But as far as Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc., the Catholics don't believe that actually happened. HBK: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Jews and Catholics both recognize most of the Old Testament, and especially Genesis to be allegories. Like Aesop's Fables. Only when it's convenient. Prophesies of the Christ seem to be taken very literally. Not a bible thumper here. but in fairness he is describing "super essential darkness" described by the philosopher and theologian Dionysius. But as usual this idiot gets it wrong since as described it is only applicable to the argument "is there a god" or "what is god". I won't go into the logic of the argument because it makes absolutely no sense trying to apply it to the physical world. Which you can tell from this video planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195] French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) Man, Jupiter's gonna be pissed off that Blaise didn't include him as an option. HBK: Wow, now I'm convinced you're an idiot. no, you're just a douchebag and I choose not to argue with you. You made a pointless political statement in a religion thread. it was intended to be biting, and it was hardly pointless. not my fault you disagree with it. You couldn't make an argument to support your statement. you are deliberately mistaking the fact that I choose not to argue with you about it with the sophomoric insinuation that I "can't". When people make odd statements in threads, I am legitimately interested in why they believe that and especially why they would shiat it in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread. oh so it's just an "odd" statement (despite the fact that it's rather mainstream among conservatives and liberals, and I used the word TEND) and you're interested. Fine. So go fark yourself or stop threadshiatting with your bullshiat political statements that: have nothing to do with the thread; and that you cannot muster a single argument to support. Oh so you're NOT just interested, because apparently it's "bullshiat". So you lied about your intentions. And you repeat the juvenile assertion that because I choose NOT to bring the argument into the thread... which you are trying to do... that I am incapable of doing so. I repeat. fark off. j0ndas: The correct answer is that there's no scientific proof for God. You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity - but God still has to be believed in, if for no other reason than you can't be sure -whose- God created things. The God of Christianity is massively different from the God of Islam, for instance. The "Jesus" of Islam is more or less identical to the Antichrist of Christianity. Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. It's a just a religion that replaces God with self. Atheists are some of the least tolerant people there are when it comes to other religions, and atheist nations have historically killed more people than all religious wars combined. Bald, incidentally, is a hair color. j0ndas: The correct answer is that there's no scientific proof for God. You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity - but God still has to be believed in, if for no other reason than you can't be sure -whose- God created things. The God of Christianity is massively different from the God of Islam, for instance. The "Jesus" of Islam is more or less identical to the Antichrist of Christianity. Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. It's a just a religion that replaces God with self. Atheists are some of the least tolerant people there are when it comes to other religions, and atheist nations have historically killed more people than all religious wars combined. Which atheist nation would that be? /or did you pull all that out your ass Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient. Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life. Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs? The All-Powerful Atheismo: HBK: Wow, now I'm convinced you're an idiot. no, you're just a douchebag and I choose not to argue with you. But yet you persist. You made a pointless political statement in a religion thread. it was intended to be biting, and it was hardly pointless. not my fault you disagree with it. I never said whether or not I agreed with it. I merely asked you to support it. You couldn't make an argument to support your statement. you are deliberately mistaking the fact that I choose not to argue with you about it with the sophomoric insinuation that I "can't". Well sure, I can fly and have sex with Jessica Alba at the same time, but I won't because I don't need to support my claims. When people make odd statements in threads, I am legitimately interested in why they believe that and especially why they would shiat it in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread. oh so it's just an "odd" statement (despite the fact that it's rather mainstream among conservatives and liberals, and I used the word TEND) and you're interested. Fine. It was "odd" because it was in queer in context. To dumb it down for you, it was strange that you would make a political statement that was wholly unrelated to the thread So go fark yourself or stop threadshiatting with your bullshiat political statements that: have nothing to do with the thread; and that you cannot muster a single argument to support. Oh so you're NOT just interested, because apparently it's "bullshiat". So you lied about your intentions. And you repeat the juvenile assertion that because I choose NOT to bring the argument into the thread... which you are trying to do... that I am incapable of doing so. It's bullshiat because you made a treadshiatting statement and failed to support it. If someone makes a bald claim and fails to support it, I call bullshiat. I repeat. fark off. Right back at you, buddy. Gyrfalcon: Arguing with a religious person who insists there is a god because they know there is a god will get you exactly nowhere. However, arguing with a non-religious person who insists there is no god because they know there is no god will get you exactly the same place. And that's pretty much where this thread will end up. At the end of the day it DOES NOT MATTER if there is a god or there is not a god; what DOES matter, however, is how people react when challenged about the existence or non-existence of a deity. The issue, in my opinion, is that some people (and it's usually the religious fascist nutjobs) want to prove that their "faith" is based in objective fact. I've never seen an atheist use objective fact to prove that no "god" exists. And in the case of the kid in this video there was the question: "do you have proof?" and the answer was total bullshiat. I don't need to prove to you that I have justification for believing you're a crazy, lying piece of shiat. I just need to top trusting anything you say. Then I'm done. What a douche to keep bringing up the kid's father instead of simply speaking to the kid. Then he smugly crows at the end, when thinks he's won some point by trying to wedge the kid's argument from his father's. What an utter dick. SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. I realize that in this case, you are probably just trolling, but the sick thing is that one does occasionally meet people who really do take comfort in statements like that. Even in the cases of people who are upset by the idea that other people could suffer eternal damnation, and therefore they try to "save" them... It's bizarre to me that anyone could be comfortable believing in the idea of a "just" god who would roast people for eternity for not accepting his existence. What a bizarrely narcissistic, unmerciful God that would have to be. (I'm reminded of the portrayal of God in the Preacher comics as a deity desperately craving the adoration of his most wretched creations.) sonorangal: Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs? weird...I've noticed that too. Isildur: What a douche to keep bringing up the kid's father instead of simply speaking to the kid. Then he smugly crows at the end, when thinks he's won some point by trying to wedge the kid's argument from his father's. What an utter dick. That was really annoying. Instead of addressing the argument he implied the kid was parroting his dad's beliefs, but never addressed those points. Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief? 0z79: Ed Finnerty: If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this? Not a soul except you. But of course, I'm crazy enough to believe that God created us because He got sick of being surrounded by yes-men that He created and imbued with conscience but no free will, so.... .... Us. 1) How does time exist for an infinite entity like God? 2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place? Pitabred: 1) How does time exist for an infinite entity like God? 2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place? 1. If god is omnipotent, he doesn't need "time" 2. Maybe he did see his boredom coming , but figured he'd deal with it later because he was currently busy with something else, like say, the production of yes-men. HoratioGates: Scientists are not out to prove there is no god, rather they are out to find scientific explanations for everything. Either god is beyond the rules of science and they will never figure him out, or he isn't, in which case scientists will explain him, or he doesn't exist. I agree, although I'd phrase it a little differently. Instead of conjecturing whether he is beyond the "rules of science", the real question is, "does he have any effect on the observable universe?" If he does, it can conceivably be measured. If not, he is consigned to irrelevance since he is unable to do anything that might affect us (in which case he can hardly be called "God"). There is still the cop-out idea of god having created the natural laws and set them in motion like some giant cosmic Rube Goldberg machine. In this case, though, god is indistinguishable from the Big Bang and is certainly not the same God that stopped the sun in the sky, and impregnated some girl with his son, and that appeared on a slice of toast or whatever other 'miracles' people attributed to him. He doesn't answer prayers or care if you go to church on Sunday, either ;after all, his job was done a long time ago. Yogimus: Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief? No, but I'm willing to try. What have you got that might cause it? Yogimus: Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief? Oh, and one more thing. Finding out that you were wrong on this subject, for me anyway, wouldn't cause a crisis. It would be FARKING FASCINATING! Tony_Pepperoni: [i.imgur.com image 850x481] No no! He's not SAYING it's aliens.... but it's aliens.... Isildur: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity. I realize that in this case, you are probably just trolling Sevenizgud, trolling? Unpossible! HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes When you say they get a bad rap are you saying they did not rape the children or that they did rape the children and we should just excuse them? Either position makes you a douche. Please backpedal like the guy in TFA and try to explain your meaning. Religion is so funny. What's hysterical, in my opinion, is that mortal beings such as ourselves believe we can understand the thoughts and feelings of a God. An omnipotent being that knows the exact location of every single atom in existence in billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and celestial bodies. A being who knows the exact temperatures, pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, atomic components, and potential/kinetic energy ratios of every atom of existence. Then people say "God wants _______." Laughable. As soon as I meet a person who can keep track of all of this information at the same time, and can tell me WHY every rule of science functions the way it does (we know how, but not why), then I will say we have a chance of understanding the thoughts and feelings of a God. Until then, throw your Bibles and Korans and Buddhist scripture away. Those books assume humans can understand divine intellect. A lot of self proclaimed atheists, myself included, only care in a couple of circumstances: 1. Science/logic is called lies, or science/logic is twisted into a lie(and no longer logical or science). No, rain is not gods tears, and thunder is not his anger..Teaching ignorance does no one any favors, and can indeed be very harmful. 2. Religion tries to force it self on people of other religions, or people who are not religious. Also included here are the religious that try to punish/exclude/ or trample the rights of those other groups. Unfortunately, that happens a lot. With modern communication and the internet, we see more and more all of the time. Can't say there is more frequency, but it's more out in the open and bandied about. ______________________________________ When I say "There is no god" it's shorthand for a multitude of different things. I'm not a firm dis-believer, and any rational person will not pedantically jump to that conclusion. There is an inherant meaning in almost everything we say, "I could be wrong" or " I may be lacking information that is currently not available, and may never be". Nothing is wrong with an atheist that chooses to forgo constant backpedalling as such. It's pretty much the default stance of an atheist. Sure, you have your active dis-believers that pretend certain knowledge, but they're actually fairly rare. May not sound like it to a pedant misanthrope, but it is. Along with that goes the disclaimer, some atheists are not self aware, and shoot off at the mouth, not deficient much, but not into really examining what is / can be known) The rest of us are merely readying a bet, but keeping a keen eye on up to the second statistics and odds. A vast majority of self proclaimed atheists, are actually agnostic. We say atheist, because many agnostics can lead very religious lives. It's a concept in imagery beyond mere definition. The collective of what society sees in those words. Annoying subterfuge sometimes, and sometimes just OCD like compulsion to categorize, whichever, it's annoying and not productive in the least. Refer to the top of my post: Most of the time a non-religious person joins an argument, it's because a religious person made a claim that was false, or a logic that was forced and hammered into sounding good the the uneducated but that was totally irrational, or something of the sort. #1 in my list. Getting too pedantic in this case, for whatever reason, is just as bad for the conversation at hand. Much like stepping on someone's foot, sometimes it's on purpose, other times it's due to people being unaware of what's going on. Muddying the waters, and all sides do it. Conflating the off hand comment to mean a christian/atheist is a firm (un)believer with no evidence and is delusional, etc. It gets old, Fark. Will you ever learn? You're not helping . JPG /sigh //just throwing it out there, a token effort if you will HBK: We had a PhD. AP biology teacher. He told us on the first day of class "the more I learn about biology, the more certain I am that God exists." He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance. PhD or not, he isn't very good at evolutionary biology if he buys that whole "irreducible complexity" BS. The evolution of the eye is well documented, and in fact it evolved independently in many, many different species in a variety of different ways. dready zim: When you say they get a bad rap are you saying He's saying they were gifted with a live rendition of Ice Ice Baby by none other than Vanilla Ice. log_jammin: Pitabred: 1) How does time exist for an infinite entity like God? 2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place? 1. If god is omnipotent, he doesn't need "time" 2. Maybe he did see his boredom coming , but figured he'd deal with it later because he was currently busy with something else, like say, the production of yes-men. So what is "later" without time? I was taught in Sunday school that God was omnipresent and that hell was a place where God was not present. I think that was the very first WTF moment of my life. Pitabred: So what is "later" without time? I don't know. I'm not god. dready zim: HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes When you say they get a bad rap are you saying they did not rape the children or that they did rape the children and we should just excuse them? Either position makes you a douche. Please backpedal like the guy in TFA and try to explain your meaning. Okay, either you're a wife beater or a homosexual. No, that's not right. You can't pigeon-hole the statement I made into the two categories you provided. They get a bad rap because a handful of priests raped children, then a lot of the Catholic hierarchy chose to ignore/hide it. The rapes and the complicity are inexcusable. BUT, Despite the failings of some of the Catholicism's leadership, the almost 2,000 year old religion is in many ways more rational than the more fundamental Christian groups. gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. That's good, since the two are completely unrelated. It's not the belief in god/s that contradicts science. It's belief in myths about the natural world that are attributed to god/s. Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter. a) The atheist in the debate IS agnostic (the dad, not the kid) and it is explicitly stated in the conversation. You may have missed it since it seems that, b) you don't understand what agnosticism is. If you did, you would know that, c) the position you're actually describing is known as Apatheism, or pragmatic atheism ThrobblefootSpectre: An agnostic doesn't think the concept of god is defined and therefor would not hope for or be interested in the idea of one being discovered No, that's called Ignosticism, and it's not a theological position either. , as you said you are. It is an interesting difference between atheists and agnostics. It's perfectly valid (and common) for an atheist to say, "I think it would be cool if there really was a god." Whereas an agnostic thinks that idea is as silly as asserting there already is a god. This is wrong. Agnosticism is not a position about the existence of gods. It's about knowledge in general. An agnostic believes there are some things which intrinsically cannot be known, not by the fault of the observer, but by the nature of knowledge itself. It essentially says that there can be no perfect knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief in gods. Atheism/Theism is a binary position. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. There's no in between position known as "agnostic". Far from being a refuge from the theist/atheist question, agnosticism is actually a much more difficult position to defend logically. ThrobblefootSpectre: And some of us know that one can be agnostic and not atheist. This is true, but if and only if you're an agnostic theist. j0ndas: Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. Not by any accepted definition of the word "religion". You can argue that there is faith involved in atheism that is arrived at by rational means, because all logic and rational thought is based upon unproven axioms, but that's not remotely similar to being a religion. Being a lifelong believer myself, I wish that other Christians would get it that we can't really prove that the God we believe in does exist. And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven. j0ndas: You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity Do even you know what you mean when you say "evolve through random chance"? Because that phrase is more vague and meaningless than a political campaign speech. Are you talking about a DNA or RNA molecule randomly assembling itself? If that's what you mean, nobody has ever suggested that a self-replicating molecule simply sprang up without any chemical precursors. Or are you talking about the actual process of evolution? Because if you're talking about the process of natural selection that is responsible for shaping us and the other life on Earth, it is decidedly NOT random. And how are those odds being calculated, and what are you calculating the odds OF? You sure to like to argue with vagaries. Although I guess that's your only option when you don't actually know anything about anything. And that both sides would get it that being insulting to the other side instead of calm and logical like those two were will never get anyone to change their mind. Gawdzila: HBK: We had a PhD. AP biology teacher. He told us on the first day of class "the more I learn about biology, the more certain I am that God exists." He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance. PhD or not, he isn't very good at evolutionary biology if he buys that whole "irreducible complexity" BS. The evolution of the eye is well documented, and in fact it evolved independently in many, many different species in a variety of different ways. I don't know anything about irreducible complexity. I don't know when this argument arose. To give a time-frame, this was over ten years ago. And I was learning the intelligent design, watch-in-an-ocean, argument nine years ago at a secular university. Also, the biology professor may have just been trying to force intelligent design into his biology course to appeal to make it more appealing to the students and faculty. Z-clipped: You either have belief in god/s or you don't. lol! the guy keeps talking about certainty. Faith != Certainty. Faith is belief in the absence of knowledge. Knowledge is literally the enemy of faith. If you had a perfect knowledge of God, you would have no faith. If you claim to have a perfect knowledge of God, you're a liar, and you're probably selling something. Revek: j0ndas: The correct answer is that there's no scientific proof for God. You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity - but God still has to be believed in, if for no other reason than you can't be sure -whose- God created things. The God of Christianity is massively different from the God of Islam, for instance. The "Jesus" of Islam is more or less identical to the Antichrist of Christianity. Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. It's a just a religion that replaces God with self. Atheists are some of the least tolerant people there are when it comes to other religions, and atheist nations have historically killed more people than all religious wars combined. Which atheist nation would that be? /or did you pull all that out your ass he didn't pull anything out of his ass. he's wrong but isn't smart enough to know it. I'm assuming that he believes that hitler, stalin, pol pot and mao were all atheist. heres a gem from 'Mein Kamph": "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." this is another good Hitler quote "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 There is more evidence, but I'm not being paid to do research for you. stop being lazy and read a book (that isn't the bible) Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven. The last part of this wish has been granted millions of times. Pay attention. The first part? If God showed herself it would be proof. So that's just silly. naughtyrev: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol. Weak troll. You should've put more effort into supporting douchebag than calling a child who won a debate whiny. And referring to a YEC as a mature adult is a bit of a stretch, too. Ow! I think I sprained my ontology. You know how there's that stratification of wealth everyone is talking about? There's a stratification of intelligence too. Sure people are getting smarter, but some groups are getting drastically less intelligent. Rent Party: When he reached #4, you should have referred him back to #1, and then went and got some White Castle while he tried to figure it out. In my second year of school they tried to get me to sing "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so". At six years old I could recognise a circular argument. Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven. Oh but we do get that. In fact it is exactly our point. From a purely logic-driven empirical standpoint, a theory that can be neither proven nor disproven is of absolutely no use. You can never know anything about how true or false it might be, which means it is unable to make helpful predictions, or provide new knowledge about the real world, because if it could then there would be a basis upon which to prove or disprove it. There are an infinite number of ideas that share that status. Not just Christianity, but Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, or the idea of reincarnation, or the 3 Fates, or any brand new religion or mythological entity someone may invent. I don't believe in any of them, and all for the same reason. You, on the other hand, have decided (or were taught) to believe in one of them. You seem to agree with me about ignoring the others as irrelevant, though ;) Spinoza sez God is not he who is God is that which is Pocket Ninja: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol. I'll say. And since we all know how much of a fan the Left is now that "math" (since Saint Clinton invoked it at their convention) and "statistics" (since the Mainstream Media has annointed Saint Nate Silver as the Holy Crusader of Liberalism), here's a test they can do to see it for themselves. 1) Watch the video with pen and paper in hand. 2) Mark each time the little boy says "um" or "uh" or some other vocalized pause and each time the man does. 3) Tally up the scores and weep. See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science. And here's another fact: the higher pitched someone's voice gets in an argument, they more they know they're losing. Listen the video again, and now listen to their voice tones. Tell me who sounds like the frantic, defeated loser. This is how criminals are caught, people. God help me, but I agree with you. I feel dirty somehow. Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven. They do get it. They just understand that this position is not specific to god/s, nor does it in any way support belief in such. I wish that theists of all colors would recognize that god/s are not exempt from the epistemic rules of onus probandi: "You can't prove that God doesn't exist!" "You can't prove that there's not an invisible unicorn in my bathroom, either." "But there's a difference between your unicorn and my God..." "Really? What?" "I REALLY REALLY want the God thing to be TRUE!" Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that both sides would get it that being insulting to the other side instead of calm and logical like those two were will never get anyone to change their mind. I don't think most atheists care whether other people believe in deities or not. I would hazard that most of us just want to be treated equally under the law, and not socially reviled as amoral heretic devil worshipers by religious folks. If theists would knock off the obnoxious proselytizing... that would just be icing on the cake at that point. log_jammin: lol! What's funny? I missed a comma? Gawdzila: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven. Oh but we do get that. In fact it is exactly our point. From a purely logic-driven empirical standpoint, a theory that can be neither proven nor disproven is of absolutely no use. You can never know anything about how true or false it might be, which means it is unable to make helpful predictions, or provide new knowledge about the real world, because if it could then there would be a basis upon which to prove or disprove it. There are an infinite number of ideas that share that status. Not just Christianity, but Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, or the idea of reincarnation, or the 3 Fates, or any brand new religion or mythological entity someone may invent. I don't believe in any of them, and all for the same reason. You, on the other hand, have decided (or were taught) to believe in one of them. You seem to agree with me about ignoring the others as irrelevant, though ;) Evidence and faith are diametrically opposed. I'm singularly unimpressed by Pascal's Wager, and I still believe it was written when Pascal was having a really off day, probably after being kicked in the head by a mule. It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith. cynicalbastard: I'm singularly unimpressed by Pascal's Wager, and I still believe it was written when Pascal was having a really off day, probably after being kicked in the head by a mule. It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith. The secret to a good wager is setting the conditions so that you know you will get the outcome you want. I'll take that bet any day. log_jammin: sonorangal: Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs? weird...I've noticed that too. Because a) they're taught that people like you are an exciting opportunity for them to do one of the things their god commands them to and b) they're usually so cloistered in their own fundie social circle that they think atheists are a rare find?. The harder and louder they evangelize, the more God loves them. Z-clipped: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: [snippy] I don't think most atheists care whether other people believe in deities or not. I would hazard that most of us just want to be treated equally under the law, and not socially reviled as amoral heretic devil worshipers by religious folks. If theists would knock off the obnoxious proselytizing... that would just be icing on the cake at that point. [snipperdoddle] Part of the Christian faith requires that they "witness" or as you call it proselytize. What most fail to understand is there is a limit to it as Jesus commanded... Basically, 3 attempts can be made to bring someone to the truth, after which you leave them alone. Unfortunately, quite a few Christians are hunt-n-peck Christians (they hunt-n-peck for parts of the Bible they like and ignore the rest). In addition, if a Christian is not knowledgeable in their faith and also competent then they should refrain from ANY debate. Z-clipped: What's funny? your comment. I thought I made that clear. Why is it funny? Because your argument is silly, forces a binary choice, and is destroyed by by one simple phrase. Q. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. do you believe in gods/s? A. "I don't know" there are more types of agnosticism than agnostic theist/agnostic atheist. Ed Grubermann: I find Pascal's wager offensive for two reasons: cynicalbastard: It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith. Yeah, I was going to say, I'm offended that Pascal thinks I can't count higher than "1". Z-clipped: log_jammin: sonorangal: Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs? weird...I've noticed that too. Because a) they're taught that people like you are an exciting opportunity for them to do one of the things their god commands them to and b) they're usually so cloistered in their own fundie social circle that they think atheists are a rare find?. The harder and louder they evangelize, the more God loves them. I doubt you could be any more wrong on the psychology behind that. The truth is that once a believe finds someone that is not a believer (be it Athiest, or anyone else for that matter), the excitement comes from the belief that they a bringing someone to the truth and therefore helping them get closer to God, and therefore gaining eternal life (not for themselves, but for the one they are speaking to)... It has nothing to do with thinking God will love them any more... that would imply selfishness, and the act of (as you call it) evangelizing is a self-less act... It is no skin off their back if you don't believe and burn in hell, but God commands them to do it to save people from that fate. That is the true psychology behind it. "once a believeR finds..." /FTFM //Preview is your friend ///SLASHIES! Pitabred: 2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place? Here's a better, if God is omnipotent, why couldn't God be anything to anyone? Or put another way, why couldn't an omnipotent God appear one way to one group and another way to another group? Funny thing is, while even today many Christians will flip at the suggestion Genghis Khan considered it the truth, that God could be anything to anyone and that everyone worshipped the same God no matter the name or names used. Hector Remarkable: Yogimus: strobe: Time is cubed would be awesome if he was right. You worship Satanic impostor guised by educators as 1 god. Opposite Creation dooms human singularity. There's no human entity, only corner Cubics, rotating life's 4 corner stage metamorphosis. FYI: a cube has eight corners. Dumb jerky loser atheists pointlessly fighting with dumb jerky loser christians. Can we move past this already? Farking snoozefest. Religion/spirituality isn't the problem. Lack of faith/god-given morals isn't the problem. People are the problem. We are all garbage across the board. log_jammin: Q. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. do you believe in gods/s? A. "I don't know" The point is, "I don't know" doesn't answer the question. You weren't asked what you know. Only whether you hold a belief. Even if by "I don't know" you mean you don't know whether you hold a belief, the question still remains unaddressed. For any logical proposition X, you either have a belief that X is true or you don't. The choice is binary because it is literally the choice between 0 and 1, a thing (your belief in X) either is or is not. Also, note that being asked the question is not necessary to the position; A person to whom the idea of a deity has never occurred is not in some kind of theological limbo... He is an atheist, because he holds no belief in a deity. This question as it's phrased here is a lot simpler than you think. log_jammin: there are more types of agnosticism than agnostic theist/agnostic atheist. True. But none of those are theological positions. They are epistemological. gremlin1: I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. And in return, I agree with your right to believe that virgins have babies. HBK: We learned all about evolution, etc. And it was all the same biology that you would learn at a state school. Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes, but they are pro-science and pro-evolution, and shouldn't be lumped together with the other Christians who refuse to believe in science. Tell it to Galileo. does that sixth grader have a receding hair line? 0Icky0: The first part? If God showed herself it would be proof. So that's just silly Many Christians believe that God has done exactly that, in many ways. But at least in part to how different people see the same thing different ways, many don't see evidence that there is a God as evidence that there is a God. Gawdzila: You, on the other hand, have decided (or were taught) to believe in one of them Something I wish that more people of all religions and atheists would do would be to at least admit that "I have chosen to believe the way I do. I may not be able to explain or understand why I made that choice, but I did make it." Instead, many don't and tend to get upset because they don't see themselves as having made a choice or they don't want to admit they have made a choice because in their eyes, admitting that they mad a choice means that they many not be absolutely right. Z-clipped: "I REALLY REALLY want the God thing to be TRUE!" I think that's why a lot of folks won't admit they have chosen to believe what they say is true. They want so badly for it to be true that they see having made a choice as an admission that they may not be right Z-clipped: I don't think most atheists care whether other people believe in deities or not. I would hazard that most of us just want to be treated equally under the law, and not socially reviled as amoral heretic devil worshipers by religious folks. If theists would knock off the obnoxious proselytizing... that would just be icing on the cake at that point I feel the same way about other Christians whose beliefs are different than my own. If they want to believe what they believe, I don't care, just as long as they don't insult what I believe or push their beliefs on me. For example, Christian conservatives who push for a law restricting or banning something I think is OK because they have a moral problem with it and can't be satisfied with just banning it from their own homes. HindiDiscoMonster: Part of the Christian faith requires that they "witness" or as you call it proselytize. What most fail to understand is there is a limit to it as Jesus commanded... Basically, 3 attempts can be made to bring someone to the truth, after which you leave them alone. Unfortunately, quite a few Christians are hunt-n-peck Christians (they hunt-n-peck for parts of the Bible they like and ignore the rest). In addition, if a Christian is not knowledgeable in their faith and also competent then they should refrain from ANY debate HindiDiscoMonster: Part of the Christian faith requires that they "witness" or as you call it proselytize. What most fail to understand is there is a limit to it as Jesus commanded... Basically, 3 attempts can be made to bring someone to the truth, after which you leave them alone. Unfortunately, quite a few Christians are hunt-n-peck Christians (they hunt-n-peck for parts of the Bible they like and ignore the rest). In addition, if a Christian is not knowledgeable in their faith and also competent then they should refrain from ANY debate *agrees* Z-clipped: The point is, "I don't know" doesn't answer the question. You weren't asked what you know. Only whether you hold a belief. Even if by "I don't know" you mean you don't know whether you hold a belief, the question still remains unaddressed. For any logical proposition X, you either have a belief that X is true or you don't. The choice is binary because it is literally the choice between 0 and 1, a thing (your belief in X) either is or is not. You can only know whether you believe in something if you know what that something is. If it is ill-defined, you may well not know whether you believe in it or not. So before applying your simple binary test to belief in god, you have to specify exactly what you mean by "god". Z-clipped: The point is, "I don't know" doesn't answer the question. not being able to answer the question is entirely the point. That apparently is the part you're missing Z-clipped: The choice is binary because it is literally the choice between 0 and 1, a thing (your belief in X) either is or is not. no. "Is there or isn't there" is a proper binary choice. "do you believe in, or don't believe in" isn't. And it isn't because there are so many answer in between yes and no. I can say the same thing with something like string theory. Do you believe in string theory? I don't know. and by saying that, it doe not mean I actually don't believe in it. It means I don't know. Z-clipped: True. But none of those are theological positions. They are epistemological. and guess where agnosticism is rooted in? Smackledorfer: As far as I was aware we could get SOMETHING from nothing, but we don't know if we could get everything from nothing (so perhaps I misspoke above) and we still can't get energy from nothing. So still no scientific explanation for how absolute nothing can create a big bang. Can you explain to me what nothing actually is first before making the leap toward the assertion that something cannot come from it? Keep in mind that in defining "nothing", you're attributing qualities to it that, by its very nature, makes it a something. And once you've done that, can you give me an example of nothing and can you demonstrate whether something can come from it? See, this is why the laws of causality are not actual scientific laws -- they are philosophical conjectures (and rank sophistry, I might add). Moreover, the laws of causality only apply to somethings, not nothings. Everything that was a cause is a Something coming from another Something, not a Nothing. HindiDiscoMonster: I doubt you could be any more wrong on the psychology behind that. I don't know... I'm certainly wrong about the philosophical justification for it, but I think the actual base psychology is probably a combination of your altruistic description, and my somewhat more.. cynical one. Most Christians are taught that heaven can't be reached by good works, but that intellectual knowledge doesn't always eradicate the belief, and it certainly doesn't stop them from trying anyway. I was just being a bit snarky, because really... nobody likes evangelists. log_jammin: no. "Is there or isn't there" is a proper binary choice. "do you believe in, or don't believe in" isn't. this doesn't read very well. and I'm trying to think of how to rephrase it. nmrsnr: Benevolent Misanthrope: What the god-pushing f*ckwit was trying to express is a fundamentally held belief among Christians who have examined their faith: You cannot prove god, but you cannot know anything unless it is revealed to you by god. Even if you don't acknowledge god's existence, god exists because if he didn't you wouldn't be sentient. Circular reasoning at its best. And this guy can't even express his own flawed reasoning. Probably because he's perfectly content living an unexamined life. I heard it a little differently, but that may be because of an actual conversation I had with my uber-religious freshman year roommate. His argument (and the one I think that was attempted here) is this: 1) You admit that you may be wrong about what you perceive (any scientist worth their salt will admit as much, like the child's father). 2) Since you admit that you cannot, with 100% certainty, claim absolute knowledge of the Universe, you admit that it is possible that god exists. 3) On the other hand, were there a perfect being with perfect knowledge, and he revealed it to you, you wouldn't have any uncertainty about the universe, since the perfect being revealed knowledge to you. (This is the guy in the video's 2+2=4 analogy) 4) Since the Bible is the revealed word of the perfect being that is god, I have no uncertainty about god's existence. 5) Since I have no uncertainty, that proves that the revelation came from god. While your uncertainty allows for god to exist, my certainty does not allow for god to not exist, therefore god must exist, because I am certain of his existence. QED I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the logical flaws in that argument (I couldn't get my roommate to see them, though). This reader finds the primary logical flaw at #3. Even if that Perfect Being had a revelation to give me, I am myself not a Perfect Being but a flawed one with a limited human brain, and can therefore never perfectly comprehend that revelation as that Being can. To claim to know the mind of that Being is to claim to have a mind equal to that Being's, and most churches call that blasphemy. 11-yo: I like turtles! Hovind: That's great, because it's turtles all the way down! naughtyrev: Wow that must be embarrassing for that guy. And it should be embarrassing for everyone who agrees with him, but it won't be. You kinda need some self respect and integrity to begin with in order to be embarrassed. I doubt this guy even realises that he was talking shiat and a little kid made more sense. Z-clipped: HindiDiscoMonster: I doubt you could be any more wrong on the psychology behind that. I don't know... I'm certainly wrong about the philosophical justification for it, but I think the actual base psychology is probably a combination of your altruistic description, and my somewhat more.. cynical one. Most Christians are taught that heaven can't be reached by good works, but that intellectual knowledge doesn't always eradicate the belief, and it certainly doesn't stop them from trying anyway. I was just being a bit snarky, because really... nobody likes evangelists. I can agree with that. Don't get me wrong though... there are bad ones in every bunch (usually the most vocal ones), but the majority really are altruistic and believe absolutely that they are doing God's work by trying to save you from damnation. log_jammin: log_jammin: no. "Is there or isn't there" is a proper binary choice. "do you believe in, or don't believe in" isn't. this doesn't read very well. and I'm trying to think of how to rephrase it. I'm probably wrong with my interpretation of what you are saying, but it almost seems something like this: Your "I don't know" = My "I don't believe there is, but I also don't believe there isn't." Is that about the gist of it? Obviously you don't favor the following interpretation, but many interpret such lack of belief either way as being atheism (weak atheism, or what I like to think of as a-theism as opposed to athe-ism) simply because it includes the lack of belief in a deity regardless of including the lack of belief in no deities, so basically not having any belief about it at all. Though, for me and my personal interpretation, I also include a suspicion (due to a conspicuous lack of evidence) of there being no deities when I call myself an atheist. I am mainly of the "don't believe, suspect there isn't, don't claim to know, don't actually care (though I do find the discussions interesting sometimes)" variety. Not that anyone was asking, so throw that onto the CSB pile. ;) Would I be correct in saying that, since you eschew being called an atheist and prefer agnostic, you harbor no suspicions either way? /I don't mind either way what label you think best describes yourself; I'm just trying to see if I'm actually understanding you or not :) I believe in God. I can't explain why, but there you go. Arguing with a fundamentalist is not a good way to spend your time. That kid has a limited number of full force arguments left in him before he gives up and stops talking about it. He may win every time but the sheer force of stupidity will wear him down. So the kid is an atheist, just like his Dad. Pretty much proves this. I was raised by a minister and was full-on into Christianity until I was about 25. When I was 20 I started asking the dangerous "what if" questions and so began a 30 year old "back slide" to the point that I realized I was really an atheist and wondering why I was so stupid as to not come to that conclusion earlier. Childhood programming is a biatch... Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I think that's why a lot of folks won't admit they have chosen to believe what they say is true. They want so badly for it to be true that they see having made a choice as an admission that they may not be right I also think this line of reasoning illustrates one of the major disconnects between how atheists and theists tend to think. Because theists WANT God to be real, the very often seem to jump to the conclusion that atheists actively WANT God to not exist. Hence the assumption that atheists deny God because they "hate" him or feel wronged by him in some way, when really emotion isn't entering into their conclusions at all. Personally, it's not that I don't want to believe in god/s. It actually seems like it would be very comforting to be able to. I just don't have any control over whether something makes sense to me or not. Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I feel the same way about other Christians whose beliefs are different than my own. If they want to believe what they believe, I don't care, just as long as they don't insult what I believe or push their beliefs on me. For example, Christian conservatives who push for a law restricting or banning something I think is OK because they have a moral problem with it and can't be satisfied with just banning it from their own homes. A beer-worthy position if ever I've heard one. I'd buy you one if I could. log_jammin: not being able to answer the question is entirely the point. That apparently is the part you're missing No, you are able to answer the question, and the answer to the question exists whether you give it or not. It exists whether I ask the question or not. That you don't know what it is, or don't want to say, is irrelevant. (Plus, you ought to know. It's not that hard. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Do you believe in Justin Bieber?) log_jammin: "Is there or isn't there" is a proper binary choice. Excellent point! Is there a belief in your mind that God exists, or isn't there? That's all this is to this question. log_jammin: Do you believe in string theory? This is not the same class of question, depending upon how you phrase it. Do I believe that a theory commonly called String Theory exists? Yes!... or No!... depending on which I believe. Do I believe that all of the ideas contained within String Theory are valid? That's actually many many questions, rolled into one. But each one of those questions has a binary answer also, if it's phrased as a logical proposition. The question we're talking about, "Do you believe in a god?" contains some basic assumptions about what the word "god" means, but no matter how far down you pare it, the position is still binary for any given definition of such. You either hold the belief that it exists, or you don't. log_jammin: Z-clipped: True. But none of those are theological positions. They are epistemological. and guess where agnosticism is rooted in? I don't need to guess... I just told you. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one. It doesn't answer the question, "do you believe in god/s?". What you don't seem to understand is that it's not a choice between "I believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist." You can be agnostic and be a theist, or you can be agnostic and be an atheist. But by logical definition you cannot be neither atheist nor theist. It's like saying, "Does log_jammin have an apple in his hand?" You either do or you don't, as long as you know what I mean by "apple" and "hand". You can't "sort of" have one. You'd have to be pretty silly to answer "I don't know" to that question, but even if you did, it wouldn't change whether you have an apple or not. orbister: You can only know whether you believe in something if you know what that something is. If it is ill-defined, you may well not know whether you believe in it or not. So before applying your simple binary test to belief in god, you have to specify exactly what you mean by "god". True. This is called Ignosticism, and is a form of Agnostic reasoning. However, it is important to recognize that as it applies to this discussion, it is inherently an if-then statement, not an answer to the question of belief. "If we wish to discuss my belief in a god, we must first define our terms." But once we at least partially define what we mean by "god", we can readily answer the question of whether we hold the belief that it exists or not. mamoru: Your "I don't know" = My "I don't believe there is, but I also don't believe there isn't." Is that about the gist of it? close enough. mamoru: Would I be correct in saying that, since you eschew being called an atheist and prefer agnostic, you harbor no suspicions either way? not so much because I don't have suspicions or assumptions either way, it's more about how we can't even come up with a useful definition of god/"a higher power", let alone proving there is or isn't one. Like I said, if someone asked me Do you believe in string theory? my answer would have to be "I don't know". Not because I harbor no suspicions either way, but because I can't even fully understand the subject being discussed beyond a very very small outline of it. I don't know what flavor of agnostic that makes me, but I do know that I'm not an atheist or a theist for that matter. If my kids can't own a creationist in a debate by 6th grade, I will be disappoint. weave: I was raised by a minister and was full-on into Christianity until I was about 25. When I was 20 I started asking the dangerous "what if" questions and so began a 30 year old "back slide" to the point that I realized I was really an atheist and wondering why I was so stupid as to not come to that conclusion earlier. I figured it out in first grade, but I had the benefit of Catholic school to help me with that. There was actually a period where I thought religion was just something adults told kids, like Santa Claus. It was very sad when I found out my mom was a full-on young earth creationist. The All-Powerful Atheismo: Ed Grubermann: planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195] French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) I find Pascal's wager offensive for two reasons: 1: It is an argument from fear. 2: It assumes that God is a complete moron who can't see into our hearts. Ahh but of God really CAN'T see into our hearts (maybe he's only semipotent?) then it sounds like a pretty sweet argument But MAN can look into our hearts ;) Technically, we should be saying "god can read out thoughts" which to most religions out there is their deity's Standard Operating Procedure and buttresses the whole "guilt as keeping us from being completely immoral" maxim. Yeah right. The crusades, covering up pedophilia... etc. Z-clipped: You either hold the belief that it exists, or you don't. as a CNN anchor would say "we're going to have to leave it there" because no matter how you put it, I simply disagree with that statement. eraser8: gremlin1: I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Why? Serious question, by the way. I asked a similar question earlier in the day...and, just as I said then, I'm not asking to argue with you or demean your beliefs. I just want to understand. Because of fear. Most deities are given a human form and reasoning. The decisions that those deities make are reasonable to humans and easily understood. When you throw in science, which a lot of people don't understand, it scares them. If the creation of the universe, solar system, earth, and human race just happened randomly then it could be wiped out randomly. It is the fear of that uncertainty that allows the formation of the religious thought process. The thought of a higher being who is in control of everything is easier to live with than the fear of random occurrences happening in your life. HindiDiscoMonster: the majority really are altruistic and believe absolutely that they are doing God's work by trying to save you from damnation. *sigh* I SO wish they wouldn't. mamoru: "I don't believe there is This is atheism. That's all atheism is. mamoru: but I also don't believe there isn't. In a very loose sense, this is the agnostic part of the answer, because it implies (to me) a recognition that it's impossible to categorically know the answer. But this isn't really answering the question asked, because the question wasn't, "Do you hold the belief that God doesn't exist?", which is a completely different proposition from the positive. gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. Welcome in the Deism club. Ed Grubermann: planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195] French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window) I find Pascal's wager offensive for two reasons: 1: It is an argument from fear. 2: It assumes that God is a complete moron who can't see into our hearts. I find it more stupid than offensive. It completely fails to reconcile with the concept of opportunity cost. It also presumes that there's only one god to believe or not believe in, whereas believing in the wrong god may be a worse outcome. But most of all, it assumes that belief or non-belief is a choice. You can lie to yourself and others, but whether you genuinely believe or not is not a conscious decision. log_jammin: close enough. If so, you're an atheist. You may not like the label, but it does describe your current position. That you are agnostic is a separate qualifier. You'd communicate your position more clearly by using both terms, than by ascribing meaning to "agnostic" that muddies the discussion. Of course, you can do what you like. log_jammin: no matter how you put it, I simply disagree with that statement. The statement is true by definition. I'm sorry that I can't help you understand that better. Oh well, I tried. log_jammin: not so much because I don't have suspicions or assumptions either way, it's more about how we can't even come up with a useful definition of god/"a higher power" Fair enough in a general sense, but if a Christian (for example) asks the question, they are obviously referring to a specific conception of a deity as described in the Bible. Surely that is sufficient information to form an opinion of that particular deity, isn't it? I use the Christian example, as it is probably the most relevant, but the question works for any deities that have been described and given specific attributes throughout history. log_jammin: I don't know what flavor of agnostic that makes me, but I do know that I'm not an atheist or a theist for that matter. Fair enough, but you will be described as an atheist by most, simply because a lack of belief either way because what it is you are being asked about is unclear is still a lack of belief. Sorry. Though you disagree with the description, just be aware of where it's coming from. But I understand your position and why you don't identify as either atheist or theist. So, regardless of what people describe you as, I at least get what you mean. :) Z-clipped: HindiDiscoMonster: the majority really are altruistic and believe absolutely that they are doing God's work by trying to save you from damnation. *sigh* I SO wish they wouldn't. I understand. Consider this... The belief for a Christian that you will go and suffer eternal torment without the truth of God's light in your life is as real to them as the sky is blue or that arsenic is poison. If you saw someone take arsenic wouldn't you try to stop them? I think most people would. To any Christian, the lack of God's law is as poisonous as that arsenic. So, from that perspective, can you understand why they try? Z-clipped: I just don't have any control over whether something makes sense to me or not. I have noticed that I do that too. I also think that sometimes, a part of life is having to accept things we don't understand. Z-clipped: A beer-worthy position if ever I've heard one. I'd buy you one if I could. I was specifically thinking of laws concerning alcohol. Most recently, a referendum on the public ballot in Pigeon Forge to allow liquor by the drink sales (It almost didn't pass) and The Valarium, a concert venue in Knoxville I liked to go to that had to close because of a new law pushed by conservatives requiring that businesses selling alcohol have to sell a certain amount of food and be open a certain number of days a week. weave: [i.imgur.com image 850x531] "everyone" ? /For Dawkins, not you :) Z-clipped: But once we at least partially define what we mean by "god", we can readily answer the question of whether we hold the belief that it exists or not. Please be more specific. Do you mean "whether or not we hold the belief that it exists" or "whether we hold the belief that it exists or the belief that it doesn't exist"? I do not believe that Alpha Centauri Bb has a moon. Neither do I belief that Alpha Centauri Bb has no moon. How should a Christian believer respond if a Zoroastrian believer asks "Do you believe in god?" orbister: Z-clipped: But once we at least partially define what we mean by "god", we can readily answer the question of whether we hold the belief that it exists or not. Please be more specific. Do you mean "whether or not we hold the belief that it exists" or "whether we hold the belief that it exists or the belief that it doesn't exist"? I do not believe that Alpha Centauri Bb has a moon. Neither do I belief that Alpha Centauri Bb has no moon. How should a Christian believer respond if a Zoroastrian believer asks "Do you believe in god?" "Yes".... though they may be talking about different "Gods"... the Christian does believe in God (their God from their perspective)... after all, we cannot answer from someone else' perspective. 0Icky0: Yogimus: Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief? No, but I'm willing to try. What have you got that might cause it? Climb in a phonebooth and I'll toss you a hand grenade? gremlin1: Oh... and Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. He had to tranquilize the 'raptors to keep things manageable. I just want to know how Noah managed to keep the rabbits down to just two. Use the extra rabbits to appease the raptors? Stupid reddit headline on fark proves that god is dead. ciberido: DisregardTheFollowing: I find it very interesting that you pointed out that the Bible implies the existence of other gods. I've clearly got more reading to do. I did not know about the famous "problem of evil". Does that mean I can't turn a profit/Prophet for arriving at that theory independently? Well, it's debated, but: The Bible Confirms Other Gods Other Gods How Many Gods Does God Say There Are? These are some of the arguments for and against. I suppose one of the better reads on this would be Sarah Armstrong's A History of God, but these videos offer a more approachable look into that. (And certainly shorter, while being well-detailed.) As a Christian, I haven't had to spend my life arguing against their stupidity, I just generally ignore the dumb ones and keep moving. I know many of you will auto-assume 'there are no dumb ones, they are all dumb' which is fine. I'm okay with people disagreeing with me. I also admit it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, but I've seen human behavior that just absolutely wrenches the heart and I find it hard to ascribe love and compassion to basic biochemical functions. Thus I believe that somewhere along the ride, someone encoded them for us, HindiDiscoMonster: So, from that perspective, can you understand why they try? Oh of course... I'm not saying I don't understand. I just wish that they understood that benevolent intentions or not, it's disrespectful to assume that my beliefs aren't just as considered and deeply held as theirs are. Do you see what I'm getting at? The gentle benevolent ideological prodding is only different from laws that keep my gay friends from being able to get married by a matter of degree. It's all Paternalism. orbister: whether or not we hold the belief that it exists Yes, this. The differentiation between the two concepts is the entire crux of my discussion with log_jammin. INeedAName: someone encoded them for us Just in humans or in any organism which shows behaviors that fit the description of "love and compassion"? mamoru: INeedAName: someone encoded them for us Just in humans or in any organism which shows behaviors that fit the description of "love and compassion"? In general. It seems like such an antithetical thing when compared to baser instincts of survival. It just seems to make no sense in the grand scheme of things to risk your life and everything you have for someone else's survival. Yet there are people who devote their lives to it (religious or not) and it blows me away. HindiDiscoMonster: "Yes".... though they may be talking about different "Gods"... the Christian does believe in God (their God from their perspective)... after all, we cannot answer from someone else' perspective. Right... and there will always be this ambiguity, even from person to person within a religion. But there are certainly some common aspects we can assume we all agree on, yes? That "God" is supernatural? Omnipotent? Omniscient? Eternal? Is that enough? If we have any devout Hindus in the thread, we can even toss out the "omnipotent" part. INeedAName: In general. It seems like such an antithetical thing when compared to baser instincts of survival. It just seems to make no sense in the grand scheme of things to risk your life and everything you have for someone else's survival. Yet there are people who devote their lives to it (religious or not) and it blows me away. So you think that this type of behavior doesn't increase survivability in a group? HindiDiscoMonster: "Yes".... though they may be talking about different "Gods"... the Christian does believe in God (their God from their perspective)... after all, we cannot answer from someone else' perspective. If someone asks us a question we must try to answer it from the questioner's perspective, or at least from a common understanding of the terms used. gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God. However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science. I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous and I believe God set off the Big Bang and then sat back to see how it goes. You have clearly articulated the way I feel as well. I have never understood why this view of God the Creator is unacceptable to the Creationists (except that it leaves no room for their arguments). Long ago and far away, I was that same child. I feel sorry for him. Being right turns out to be a journey with less rewards than one would hope for. Two things: a) I don't particularly care whether you believe in god. It does not affect me in any way, shape, or form...and if you keep it that way, then I will continue not caring. However, if it hinders my child's ability to receive an education I see fit or my rights that I am provided, then we have a problem. If we are going to be adults about this, then you keep your religion away from me and I'll keep my science and logic away from you. 2) if religious people would just admit that they are taking their answers on faith and leave it at that, we'd all be better off. Some do, but others have a need to take it beyond that and try to find proof or disprove another belief as though it were similarly just faith. That is wrong and involves some form of circular logic or lying. Also, it usually involves the statement "scientific theories are just theories". Admit that, at some point, you just stopped and accepted the answer without pushing further. That is faith in the answer. There is no proof and there is no evidence. Once you accept that you simply are accepting the final answer because you want to believe it, we are all better off. D) I don't go around telling others this. If someone brings it up, I usually nod my head and smile hoping they stop talking. It annoys me to no end that those without faith (or those with the wrong faith) are yelled at, condemned, murdered, and constantly ostracized. Atheists don't come to my door pushing their beliefs on me. INeedAName: mamoru: INeedAName: someone encoded them for us Just in humans or in any organism which shows behaviors that fit the description of "love and compassion"? In general. It seems like such an antithetical thing when compared to baser instincts of survival. It just seems to make no sense in the grand scheme of things to risk your life and everything you have for someone else's survival. Yet there are people who devote their lives to it (religious or not) and it blows me away. If you are interested in checking out an evolutionary explanation, I'd highly recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Even if you don't like Dawkins for his anti-religious views, this book is worth reading, as it is solely about biology, and religion comes up only in a single chapter, and then only as an example to illustrate the idea of memes as replicators, not to analyze or attack religion. And it is written at the lay-person level. As long as you passed high school biology and have a reasonably basic understanding of genetics, then the book is readable. Even if you are not convinced of the scientific explanation, it'll definitely give you something to think about and expand your viewpoint. In a nutshell, there are evolutionary explanations for "altruism", such self-sacrifice, and such emotions, and these explanations are fascinating (and logical). :) Whether or not you check it out is up to you, but just thought I'd throw it out there. :) There are about 100 +/- 5 distinct powerful gods that some significant subset of humans have believed in. A monotheist has profound doubts about all but one while an atheist has profound doubts about one more. So, within the margin of error, there's really no difference between atheists and theists. Earguy: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol. I heard a lot of nonsensical arguing, and when the adult got tested, he reverted quickly to "his dad put him up to this." The kid, however, was not willing to listen or consider a differing opinion. Even if it was stupid. Instead of listening to the answer, he was more interested in firing off another shot. Ultimately, no minds were changed that day, there was no enlightenment or self examination by anyone in the room. Well-said. There was alot of derp going on there--that was certainly no intelligent discussion. I'm a Christian but, I learned a long time ago that arguing faith is a complete waste of time. There is a fundamental conflict of faith when you try to argue that it's ok to mix state/state-funded schools/govt with religion. It amazes me that this is still a debatable issue. orbister: If someone asks us a question we must try to answer it from the questioner's perspective, or at least from a common understanding of the terms used. Really though, if someone says "Do you believe in a god?", don't we all pretty much agree on what they mean? Isn't it understood, generally? mamoru: INeedAName: mamoru: INeedAName: someone encoded them for us Just in humans or in any organism which shows behaviors that fit the description of "love and compassion"? In general. It seems like such an antithetical thing when compared to baser instincts of survival. It just seems to make no sense in the grand scheme of things to risk your life and everything you have for someone else's survival. Yet there are people who devote their lives to it (religious or not) and it blows me away. If you are interested in checking out an evolutionary explanation, I'd highly recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Even if you don't like Dawkins for his anti-religious views, this book is worth reading, as it is solely about biology, and religion comes up only in a single chapter, and then only as an example to illustrate the idea of memes as replicators, not to analyze or attack religion. And it is written at the lay-person level. As long as you passed high school biology and have a reasonably basic understanding of genetics, then the book is readable. Even if you are not convinced of the scientific explanation, it'll definitely give you something to think about and expand your viewpoint. In a nutshell, there are evolutionary explanations for "altruism", such self-sacrifice, and such emotions, and these explanations are fascinating (and logical). :) Whether or not you check it out is up to you, but just thought I'd throw it out there. :) And BMFPitt regardless of whether or not there are biological underpinnings, there is a purposeful choice made by people that seems to go against the natural order of things. I find those decisions to be fascinating. And while I appreciate the suggestion of the book, the fact is that my reading list is already 10+ deep. planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195] Deeply religious individuals may find this material offensive or disturbing. (new window) Or incredibly short-minded and stupid. There's nothing more irritating than militant atheism. Z-clipped: orbister: If someone asks us a question we must try to answer it from the questioner's perspective, or at least from a common understanding of the terms used. Really though, if someone says "Do you believe in a god?", don't we all pretty much agree on what they mean? Isn't it understood, generally? The term that needs defining in this argument is atheist. log_jamming has been defining an atheist as: Someone who believes god doesn't exist. for Z-clipped, the atheist is rather defined as : Someone who doesn't believe god exists. The argument is settled once you both agree on one or the other. propasaurus: Notabunny: Has anyone heard yet what the Creationists are going to say in a few weeks when NASA announces they've found signs of life on Mars? I had a pastor years ago who taught that the parable of the lost sheep could be interpreted to mean that there are other planets with life out there. But ours is the only one that went astray, and so we're the ones the shepherd had to come save. Like The Covenant, you mean? Is the Flood then the devil, or something? Atheist libtards say that the world is 5 billion years old, and that evolution is real. If that's so, why hasn't this (hypothetical) rock in my hand evolved into an animal yet? How can you create a DNA molecule and ALL of the other mechanisms needed for life using only the elements left behind from an ancient supernova? By accident? What? You can't even do it intentionally in a laboratory? OK. Science is about questioning and not being afraid of where the questions lead you. mister aj: Atheist libtards say that the world is 5 billion years old, and that evolution is real. If that's so, why hasn't this (hypothetical) rock in my hand evolved into an animal yet? funny that, my hypothetical rock has evolved into a frog. Akbar the Trappiste Monk: Or incredibly short-minded and stupid. There's nothing more irritating than militant atheism. So someone is militant if they hold an opinion that is different than you and dare speak about it?? What I hate is when people are so insecure about their beliefs that they get angry when others debate them. As a person who is religious, i believe that God is so great he created a mature universe. Science just goes on to prove how detailed his creation is, and how great he was. But i am not going to beat people up with my bible who disagree with me Z-clipped: Really though, if someone says "Do you believe in a god?", don't we all pretty much agree on what they mean? Isn't it understood, generally? That's a different question. Wouldn't polytheists have to answer "No"? thrgd456: How can you create a DNA molecule and ALL of the other mechanisms needed for life using only the elements left behind from an ancient supernova? By accident? By natural selection. Want proof? Look around you. kkinnison: As a person who is religious, i believe that God is so great he created a mature universe. With all sorts of things like leftover radiation from the Big bang? That's quite a back story. How do you know he didn't do it last Tuesday - or are you happy with the idea that he might have done it last Tuesday? I don't really think the pea brain 6th grader won that. You're all wrong. thrgd456: How can you create a DNA molecule and ALL of the other mechanisms needed for life using only the elements left behind from an ancient supernova? By accident? What? You can't even do it intentionally in a laboratory? OK. Science is about questioning and not being afraid of where the questions lead you. "We don't completely understand it, therefor$magic."?

I'm fairly certain that in all the history of science, the answer has never actually been "Well, what do you know...the gods really *did* do it..."

Farking Canuck: Akbar the Trappiste Monk:
Or incredibly short-minded and stupid.

There's nothing more irritating than militant atheism.

So someone is militant if they hold an opinion that is different than you and dare speak about it??

What I hate is when people are so insecure about their beliefs that they get angry when others debate them.

It's likely that people who debate (or in this case argue) about their faith or those who chose to argue about anothers faith, are both traveling the same road of insecurity. Take this video. Both were out to prove they were *right* and instead all that came out of it was a mish-mash of derp and snark.

kkinnison: As a person who is religious, i believe that God is so great he created a mature universe. Science just goes on to prove how detailed his creation is, and how great he was.
But i am not going to beat people up with my bible who disagree with me

That is not what you believe "as a person who is religious". Catholics don't believe that; they are religious. In fact that idea seems to be a peculiarly American belief. There are only a very few forms of recently developed Protestant (generally) sects that hold that view as far as I know. I'm curious to what extent you consider the universe "mature". Do you believe (as Zeno did) that there can be no change whatsoever? That the sun was never in time formed? That astrological events are not taking place even now? If so I am fascinated.

It's pretty easy.

(1) There is, at this time, no direct evidence that supports the existence of an extra-terrestrial conscious, sentient being who manages every particle of matter in the universe. (and if there was, but it didn't manage 100% of the universe, then it's not really the supreme being we've been told to envision.)

The burden of proof is placed on the person making the positive claim, and they cannot argue that direct evidence exists. Period. That's a pretty substantial hole from which to climb in a debate or argument.

(2) Those who claim at least one does exist anyway have anthropomorphized it/them (or have been instructed by others to anthropomorphize), given names that human beings can use the facial/jaw muscles, teeth, and tongue to form the phonemes "/g/ /o/ /d/" (or other names) and continue to purport all kinds of other specific knowledge about this being or beings.

If some sort of extra-terrestrial conscious, sentient being does exist and does manage the molecule to molecule affairs of the whole universe, who's to say its name isn't like the name of Darryl Hannah's mermaid character, that when pronounced by it, you might only hear a window-shattering "EEEEEEEE! EEEEEEEEEE! EEEEEEEEE! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" It seems, instead, rather cozy that this being, which we haven't ever directly observed, has a name and other specific facts that fit easily into our little brain. "God." Or whatever.

What I'm saying is...

(1) No direct evidence has ever been shown.
(2) It really, really seems fake.

Religious people don't have an easy time defending their beliefs. They have to come up with bizarro, convoluted schemes like the creationist in this video to even carry on a conversation about it. It would be one thing if they purported something a lot more vague instead of it surely being a supreme being named God that has all sorts of facts associated with it, but rarely do they.

Shall we go on?

(3) It seems that the idea of Gods exists to help pacify scared people, plus control them for other power-seeking humans.

It's silly. If something vaguely similar to a supreme being who manages even parts of the universe greater than ourselves, it does a pretty shiatty, illogical job.

But go ahead and knock yourselves out if it makes you feel better. Just keep it out of the government and we'll both be happy.

Z-clipped: This is wrong. Agnosticism is not a position about the existence of gods. It's about knowledge in general. An agnostic believes there are some things which intrinsically cannot be known, not by the fault of the observer, but by the nature of knowledge itself. It essentially says that there can be no perfect knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief in gods. Atheism/Theism is a binary position. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. There's no in between position known as "agnostic". Far from being a refuge from the theist/atheist question, agnosticism is actually a much more difficult position to defend logically

It's not wrong, just a shortcut in terminology for me. Technically, the label that fits the closet for me is theological noncognitivist. But I generally just substitute "agnostic" in general discussion, because it gets the idea across, it's easier to type, it sounds less pretentious, and people don't have to go reading wikipedia to understand what I'm saying. Unfortunately someone, usually atheists, invariably starts trying to convince me that I must believe in atheism.

Z-clipped: Atheism/Theism is a binary position.

Unless you think the question is undefined and therefore meaningless in the first place. Then you take neither position.

Orange-Pippin:
It's likely that people who debate (or in this case argue) about their faith or those who chose to argue about anothers faith, are both traveling the same road of insecurity. Take this video. Both were out to prove they were *right* and instead all that came out of it was a mish-mash of derp and snark.

Not always, I'd say often people argue that their own beliefs are reasonable. They are not necessarily trying to prove to each other that they are right.

This just in!
Atheists who won't shut up about not believing in a 'god' are just as annoying as people who won't shut up about how awesome they think their 'god' is.
No one will ever be in a religious debate and at the end say "wow, that guy was right! I am fully with him now".

believe what you want and shut your pie hole because you aren't going to change someones core beliefs. Only they can do that with enough self reflection.

annnd that guy in the video was an idiot.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: muck1969: but logic is hard to fight.

libertarians tend to do very well at it.

Lol

No they do well about believing an ideology like a religion and ignoring facts that tell them otherwise.

Tons of facts show business regulation is important, does that change their view? Nope, because it's ideology 1st. Just like religious people.

shiat like this always fascinates me on fark. I can't understand why such a topic gets the amount of comments that it does. Right now, there are 369 comments and that's sure to increase.

I could see it if there was actually a debate going on in here. That would require representation for both sides of the argument. Instead, 300 atheist seem to be arguing with 3 Christians. No I didn't count that, but you get the point unless you just want to be argumentative.

So what I'm wondering is, who the fark are you arguing with? Is there really any intelligence required for this, or is it like a pep rally or something?

Orange-Pippin: It's likely that people who debate (or in this case argue) about their faith or those who chose to argue about anothers faith, are both traveling the same road of insecurity. Take this video. Both were out to prove they were *right* and instead all that came out of it was a mish-mash of derp and snark.

Sure ... and what is "militant" about arguing a subject??

Looking at the comic I posted: The "militant islamist" is blowing people up. The militant christian is murdering a doctor. The "militant atheist" is drinking and, I assume, talking about how ridiculous religion is.

I can see what makes the first two 'militant'. What makes the the third militant??

Since all christians are supposed to "spread the word" ... does that make all of them 'militant'?

kkinnison: As a person who is religious, i believe that God is so great he created a mature universe. Science just goes on to prove how detailed his creation is, and how great he was.

God is trolling us?

Ow My Balls: It's pretty easy.

No, it's not that easy. It is easy however not to really consider the question.

BobDeluxe: So what I'm wondering is, who the fark are you arguing with? Is there really any intelligence required for this, or is it like a pep rally or something?

It is because of the logic gymnastics that the religious people do to justify their beliefs. Which I find funny because they have a 'get out of jail free' card by saying "I have faith". You can believe that someone's faith is misplaced but you can't really argue with it.

But when they try to justify their faith with circular logic or misunderstood science then it is like chumming shark-infested water. Like the guy in the story ... his argument is beyond ridiculous. It is fun to tear it apart and watch people do a few more back-flips trying to defend it.

Ablejack: Orange-Pippin:
It's likely that people who debate (or in this case argue) about their faith or those who chose to argue about anothers faith, are both traveling the same road of insecurity. Take this video. Both were out to prove they were *right* and instead all that came out of it was a mish-mash of derp and snark.

Not always, I'd say often people argue that their own beliefs are reasonable. They are not necessarily trying to prove to each other that they are right.

True. A debate on personal beliefs can be reasonable. However, it seems counterproductive to debate religion/faith or lack of thereof. Why even bother unless the motive is to prop yourself up in some way? Or to make yourself feel better? It just seems that when faith/religion becomes the topic of discussion, passion takes a front row seat.

Farking Canuck: Orange-Pippin: It's likely that people who debate (or in this case argue) about their faith or those who chose to argue about anothers faith, are both traveling the same road of insecurity. Take this video. Both were out to prove they were *right* and instead all that came out of it was a mish-mash of derp and snark.

Sure ... and what is "militant" about arguing a subject??

Looking at the comic I posted: The "militant islamist" is blowing people up. The militant christian is murdering a doctor. The "militant atheist" is drinking and, I assume, talking about how ridiculous religion is.

I can see what makes the first two 'militant'. What makes the the third militant??

Since all christians are supposed to "spread the word" ... does that make all of them 'militant'?

I'm not sure how I can help you or answer your question friend.. I never mentioned the word militant (??), suggested such or even brought up that kind of individual. Are you sure this was for me?

The All-Powerful Atheismo: HBK: Wow, now I'm convinced you're an idiot.

no, you're just a douchebag and I choose not to argue with you.

it was intended to be biting, and it was hardly pointless. not my fault you disagree with it.

You couldn't make an argument to support your statement.

you are deliberately mistaking the fact that I choose not to argue with you about it with the sophomoric insinuation that I "can't".

When people make odd statements in threads, I am legitimately interested in why they believe that and especially why they would shiat it in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread.

oh so it's just an "odd" statement (despite the fact that it's rather mainstream among conservatives and liberals, and I used the word TEND) and you're interested. Fine.

So go fark yourself or stop threadshiatting with your bullshiat political statements that: have nothing to do with the thread; and that you cannot muster a single argument to support.

Oh so you're NOT just interested, because apparently it's "bullshiat". So you lied about your intentions. And you repeat the juvenile assertion that because I choose NOT to bring the argument into the thread... which you are trying to do... that I am incapable of doing so.

I repeat. fark off.

Personally, i think you two should get a room... :P

So if god knows everything how about telling us how many points the Texans will beat the Lions by today.

Mike_LowELL: I am the head of Tiny Irregular Screws Incorporated, the world's fifth-leading manufacturer of the rare-but-dangerous "exploding irregular screw", which responds to structural stress by exploding. I do not know why construction companies buy these things, but if they buy them, I will continue to make them. As long as they are of high quality, and the exploding screws continue to explode, there will be demand for ones that have not.

OT, but I'm adding this to my answers of "What do you do?" pick up lines.

"I work rehabilitating dolphins with mental disorders."
"I sell ice cream. With little sprinkles.. and chocolate syrup.. Sometimes I sell sherbet too.."

thrgd456: How can you create a DNA molecule and ALL of the other mechanisms needed for life using only the elements left behind from an ancient supernova? By accident?

Given generous parameters and an unlimited time-frame, anything statistically improbable is inevitable.

thrgd456: What? You can't even do it intentionally in a laboratory? OK.

Not sure why this is necessary. Not all science is raw experimentation. In fact, only a fraction of it is. If you want a repeatable and testable experiment that validates all of evolution's assertions in one go with rockhard mathematical certainty, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Evolutionary science, like astronomy and geology and biology and countless other sciences, is a purely deductive science that depends on analysis of evidence and accumulation of data. But like all science, it doesn't claim certainties, only high probabilities.

Gawdzila: HoratioGates: Scientists are not out to prove there is no god, rather they are out to find scientific explanations for everything. Either god is beyond the rules of science and they will never figure him out, or he isn't, in which case scientists will explain him, or he doesn't exist.

I agree, although I'd phrase it a little differently.
Instead of conjecturing whether he is beyond the "rules of science", the real question is, "does he have any effect on the observable universe?" If he does, it can conceivably be measured. If not, he is consigned to irrelevance since he is unable to do anything that might affect us (in which case he can hardly be called "God").

There is still the cop-out idea of god having created the natural laws and set them in motion like some giant cosmic Rube Goldberg machine. In this case, though, god is indistinguishable from the Big Bang and is certainly not the same God that stopped the sun in the sky, and impregnated some girl with his son, and that appeared on a slice of toast or whatever other 'miracles' people attributed to him. He doesn't answer prayers or care if you go to church on Sunday, either ;after all, his job was done a long time ago.

Why do you assume he can't do both? If i play with an erector set, most of it is watching cool shiat happen...

/huh huh... i said erect.

Farking Canuck: BobDeluxe: So what I'm wondering is, who the fark are you arguing with? Is there really any intelligence required for this, or is it like a pep rally or something?

It is because of the logic gymnastics that the religious people do to justify their beliefs. Which I find funny because they have a 'get out of jail free' card by saying "I have faith". You can believe that someone's faith is misplaced but you can't really argue with it.

But when they try to justify their faith with circular logic or misunderstood science then it is like chumming shark-infested water. Like the guy in the story ... his argument is beyond ridiculous. It is fun to tear it apart and watch people do a few more back-flips trying to defend it.

So it's essentially for the entertainment value and everyone realizes that the very few that come through in support of the opposing view are likely not that bright anyway?

dready zim: Isildur: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

I realize that in this case, you are probably just trolling

Sevenizgud, trolling? Unpossible!

HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes

When you say they get a bad rap are you saying they did not rape the children or that they did rape the children and we should just excuse them?

Either position makes you a douche. Please backpedal like the guy in TFA and try to explain your meaning.

Orange-Pippin: Ablejack: Orange-Pippin:
It's likely that people who debate (or in this case argue) about their faith or those who chose to argue about anothers faith, are both traveling the same road of insecurity. Take this video. Both were out to prove they were *right* and instead all that came out of it was a mish-mash of derp and snark.

Not always, I'd say often people argue that their own beliefs are reasonable. They are not necessarily trying to prove to each other that they are right.

True. A debate on personal beliefs can be reasonable. However, it seems counterproductive to debate religion/faith or lack of thereof. Why even bother unless the motive is to prop yourself up in some way? Or to make yourself feel better? It just seems that when faith/religion becomes the topic of discussion, passion takes a front row seat.

It often does and it's a shame (although sometimes entertaining). I am atheist (Catholic) yet often argue the case for devotion. Why bother? Well I think that holding these beliefs can be a fine way to live. Like the US President reiterated recently "We are a nation of Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Jews, etc." We can (ought to? must?) respect the [dis]beliefs of each other and still discuss this stuff. (the frickin' Pope said that years ago too)

BobDeluxe: So it's essentially for the entertainment value and everyone realizes that the very few that come through in support of the opposing view are likely not that bright anyway?

Watching people try to defend indefensible positions is highly entertaining.

Pointing and laughing is just part of the fun.

Ablejack: ... Why bother? Well I think that holding these beliefs can be a fine way to live. Like the US President reiterated recently "We are a nation of Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Jews, etc." We can (ought to? must?) respect the [dis]beliefs of each other and still discuss this stuff...

Well-said :)

reklamfox: I haven't seen Bevets is a looooong time. I am starting to think he is gone for good.

Bevets isn't IPv6 compatible.

I'm an atheist and I hate hard core atheists.

There is a reason we call it faith, let everyone have their faith. I can never understand why people take personal offense to what someone else believes.

log_jammin: mamoru: Your "I don't know" = My "I don't believe there is, but I also don't believe there isn't."

Is that about the gist of it?

close enough.

mamoru: Would I be correct in saying that, since you eschew being called an atheist and prefer agnostic, you harbor no suspicions either way?

not so much because I don't have suspicions or assumptions either way, it's more about how we can't even come up with a useful definition of god/"a higher power", let alone proving there is or isn't one. Like I said, if someone asked me Do you believe in string theory? my answer would have to be "I don't know". Not because I harbor no suspicions either way, but because I can't even fully understand the subject being discussed beyond a very very small outline of it.

I don't know what flavor of agnostic that makes me, but I do know that I'm not an atheist or a theist for that matter.

You are an atheist: a not-theist.

That is what the prefix "a" does.

You can hold whatever beliefs you like, and your thoughts on god may not be disprovable, but your thoughts on language certainly are.

Words have meaning. Don't change the meaning in some shiatty attempt to feel superior.

Too much hippy atheist live-and-let-live horseshiat going on ITT. Too many believers with their heads still on. MOAR HAET NAO.

I know I'm late to the party does it strike people as odd that Eric said "and there is a rule that being cannot lie...?" Automatically that subjects that being to the authority of another. It also shows lack of omnipotence. Hmmmm.

HindiDiscoMonster: dready zim: Isildur: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

I realize that in this case, you are probably just trolling

Sevenizgud, trolling? Unpossible!

HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes

When you say they get a bad rap are you saying they did not rape the children or that they did rape the children and we should just excuse them?

Either position makes you a douche. Please backpedal like the guy in TFA and try to explain your meaning.

I'm going with 'kinda true'. Priests don't statistically have a higher incidence of child molestation than many other professions. We have teachers guilty of this abuse about twice a month just here on fark. A big difference is that we think of the teachers as individual incidents and look at the problems in the Church as a collective. As for the 'cover-up', uh, there's not really a cover-up. The Church admits guilt and shame and makes due reparations, - meanwhile trying to protect it's members from criminalization. This sort of protection often happens with international organizations and in the US Military as well. I'm not saying that it's not disgusting or that the Church has handled it perfectly but that maybe, yeah, they get a bad rap overall.

Ablejack: The term that needs defining in this argument is atheist.

Believe me... I've been trying! It's not a complicated idea, but some people seem very reluctant to forgo their preconceptions.

Ablejack: The argument is settled once you both agree on one or the other.

Actually, I think log_jammin's issue is more complex than that.

ThrobblefootSpectre: theological noncognitivist.

Basically synonymous with Ignosticism, but OK.

ThrobblefootSpectre: But I generally just substitute "agnostic" in general discussion, because it gets the idea across, it's easier to type, it sounds less pretentious, and people don't have to go reading wikipedia to understand what I'm saying. Unfortunately someone, usually atheists, invariably starts trying to convince me that I must believe in atheism

I don't care whether you're atheist or theist. I was just trying to illustrate that, ahem... theological noncognitivism... is not an alternative position on the existence of god. It answers a completely different question. And, like it or not, no matter what brand of agnostic reasoning you subscribe to, you're still either an atheist or a theist at the end of the day. There's no "middle ground" on that particular proposition. You either have a belief in god, or you don't.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Unless you think the question is undefined and therefore meaningless in the first place. Then you take neither position.

The question is only undefined until you define it. The word "god" has a reasonable concrete meaning. Unless you want to get into a discussion about semiotics, where I will not be willing to follow you, then "god" is a definable enough term that you can have (or not have) a belief in whatever you decide it is.

We cannot know everything about a tree, but we can know that it is tall, that it is leafy, that it is rough to the touch... we can know enough about it to agree on what a tree is. We cannot know a god completely, but we can know enough about it to know whether we find the idea of its existence plausible.

For example, whatever a god is, it is certainly supernatural (i.e. outside of, and unbound by the laws of nature). Do you believe in the existence of such a thing? God is also generally assumed to be sentient, omniscient, and responsible for the creation of the universe. Do you have a belief in a being that satisfies these four criteria?

This particular question now being defined, and restated in propositional form:

Throbblefoot holds the affirmative belief that such a being exists.

There are only two possibilities for this statement. True or False. Follow?

Twist-42: Atheists who won't shut up about not believing in a 'god' are just as annoying as people who won't shut up about how awesome they think their 'god' is.

And what's more obnoxious than someone complaining about a group of people they disagree with?... Someone complaining about two groups of people they disagree with!

BobDeluxe: Instead, 300 atheist seem to be arguing with 3 Christians.

I'm doing a lot of arguing, but not with any of the Christians, as far as I've noticed. Maybe you should check your assumptions and read what the thread is actually about?

Z-clipped: This is wrong. Agnosticism is not a position about the existence of gods. It's about knowledge in general. An agnostic believes there are some things which intrinsically cannot be known, not by the fault of the observer, but by the nature of knowledge itself. It essentially says that there can be no perfect knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief in gods. Atheism/Theism is a binary position. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. There's no in between position known as "agnostic". Far from being a refuge from the theist/atheist question, agnosticism is actually a much more difficult position to defend logically.

You are becoming dreadfully tangled up between knowledge and belief here.

Z-clipped: HindiDiscoMonster: So, from that perspective, can you understand why they try?

Oh of course... I'm not saying I don't understand. I just wish that they understood that benevolent intentions or not, it's disrespectful to assume that my beliefs aren't just as considered and deeply held as theirs are. Do you see what I'm getting at? The gentle benevolent ideological prodding is only different from laws that keep my gay friends from being able to get married by a matter of degree.

It's all Paternalism.

orbister: whether or not we hold the belief that it exists

Yes, this. The differentiation between the two concepts is the entire crux of my discussion with log_jammin.

I agree that it can be tiresome... I suppose though, I would rather someone love me enough to tell me rather than not give a shiat (like a large portion of the world)... Even if their actions are misguided from my perspective.

Orange-Pippin: Why even bother unless the motive is to prop yourself up in some way?

Perhaps some of us are just happy that it's not 1480, and we're thankful that we can have such a discussion without being burned at the stake?

Gergesa: I know I'm late to the party does it strike people as odd that Eric said "and there is a rule that being cannot lie...?" Automatically that subjects that being to the authority of another. It also shows lack of omnipotence. Hmmmm.

God would not (obviously) be subject to our reason. We aren't even that weak. OR: Maybe Eric should have said "He would not lie." On his behalf he stated that rule only when he presented the hypothetical that he was the omniscient being.
/Bottom line though, is that the theist dude from the video is somewhat of an idiot and not really fit to carry the torch for his beliefs as a public figure. But what the hell, makes for a decent thread.

Smackledorfer: You are an atheist: a not-theist.

That is what the prefix "a" does.

No, he is clearly an agnostic. He has expressed no opinions on the existence or otherwise of god, but has said that he does not consider the existence or otherwise of god to be knowable. You don't get much more agnostic than that.

orbister: HindiDiscoMonster:
"Yes".... though they may be talking about different "Gods"... the Christian does believe in God (their God from their perspective)... after all, we cannot answer from someone else' perspective.

If someone asks us a question we must try to answer it from the questioner's perspective, or at least from a common understanding of the terms used.

Unless you are the asker, it is not possible to know their perspective... You may think you do, but you don't... The term "God" is generic at best... If they asked the question "do you believe in my God", then that is much clearer.

Hovind

Yeah, let's just stop there...

kkinnison: As a person who is religious, i believe that God is so great he created a mature universe. Science just goes on to prove how detailed his creation is, and how great he was.

But i am not going to beat people up with my bible who disagree with me

Phonebooks are more effective, & they leave no marks.

Z-clipped: For example, whatever a god is, it is certainly supernatural (i.e. outside of, and unbound by the laws of nature). Do you believe in the existence of such a thing? God is also generally assumed to be sentient, omniscient, and responsible for the creation of the universe. Do you have a belief in a being that satisfies these four criteria?

This particular question now being defined, and restated in propositional form:

Throbblefoot holds the affirmative belief that such a being exists.

There are only two possibilities for this statement. True or False. Follow?

Supposing he believes in a god meeting three of your criteria, but not the fourth. The statement would be false, but that doesn't make him an atheist. Your big problem here is that you are trying to reach hard and fast positions from a stage of woolly handwaving. "God is, well, something or other, and may or may not have some attributes DO YOU BELIEVE IN HIM YES OR NO?".

FraggleStickCar: Dumb jerky loser atheists pointlessly fighting with dumb jerky loser christians. Can we move past this already? Farking snoozefest. Religion/spirituality isn't the problem. Lack of faith/god-given morals isn't the problem. People are the problem. We are all garbage across the board.

Here., you might find this helpful.

orbister: No, he is clearly an agnostic.

Yes he is.

He has expressed no opinions on the existence or otherwise of god

Which makes him an agnostic atheist. Just like 99.999% of atheists are.

but has said that he does not consider the existence or otherwise of god to be knowable. You don't get much more agnostic than that.

That is correct.

Z-clipped: You either have a belief in god, or you don't.

Nope. I think the question is undefined. I take neither position. I assign no truth value to it. Neither 0 nor 1.

It's like the question of whether snarfurble is weebfuben. I consider the question meaningless, and therefore assign no truth value. Even assigning a value of false doesn't have any meaning.

Look, I understand you want to believe everyone is atheist. I get it. But you can't simply rant at people and make it so. Same for christians who insist I must believe as they do.

orbister: Smackledorfer: You are an atheist: a not-theist.

That is what the prefix "a" does.

No, he is clearly an agnostic. He has expressed no opinions on the existence or otherwise of god, but has said that he does not consider the existence or otherwise of god to be knowable. You don't get much more agnostic than that.

He said he was not a theist. He is, therefore, an atheist.

I know he doesn't know what an atheist is, so I don't use his claim of not being an atheist as evidence that he believes in god.

Perhaps I give him too much credit to trust he is using 'theist' correctly?

HindiDiscoMonster: Unless you are the asker, it is not possible to know their perspective... You may think you do, but you don't... The term "God" is generic at best... If they asked the question "do you believe in my God", then that is much clearer.

I agree. "God" is far too diffuse a term to make the question "Do you believe in god?" meanngful without explicit or implicit definition. I would not be surprised if Professor Dawkins were to answer yes "I believe that god (as a psychological construction) exists." I would not be surprised if the Pope were to answer "I do not believe that god (as an old man sitting on a cloud) exists."

Z-clipped is differentiating noise here, by insisting on absolute answers to ill-defined questions.

orbister: You are becoming dreadfully tangled up between knowledge and belief here.

Not at all. Read it again. It all makes sense.

Oh, wait. I think I see where I could have been more clear and less colloquial. You lose it when I say "an agnostic believes", right? I should have written it, "It is the agnostic position that,..." to avoid confusion. But the whole paragraph basically boils down to:

Agnosticism/Gnosticism applies to epistemology.
Theism/Atheism applies to belief in a deity.
"I have belief in a deity" is a propositional statement. (i.e either true or false, but not both or neither)
"Agnostic" is not an in-between or alternative position to Atheism/Theism because it fails to address belief.

Creationist arguments always fall apart if you let them yammer on long enough. Actually arguing against it almost does a disservice to the opposing argument, or non-argument as it were.

I'm agnostic, and so are you. Yes, you!

BMFPitt: He has expressed no opinions on the existence or otherwise of god

Which makes him an agnostic atheist. Just like 99.999% of atheists are.

That depends on how you define "atheist", and whether you consider the term synonymous with either hard or soft atheism.

Everything is either symetric or asymetric.

Do you folks claiming to be neither theists nor atheists believe in a grey area between those two things as well? Do you believe there exists, or could exist, a shape or form that is simultaneously both or at one point neither?

wippit: I believe in God.
I can't explain why, but there you go.

Do you beleive in the same God as your parents? Did you go to church with them as a child? If the answer to both is "yes", then it has been explained.

Z-clipped: Orange-Pippin: Why even bother unless the motive is to prop yourself up in some way?

Perhaps some of us are just happy that it's not 1480, and we're thankful that we can have such a discussion without being burned at the stake?

Indeed, although being thankful for freedom of speech and freedom of religion is another discussion is it not? I was referring to the need to debate passionate subject in this century and the correlation to ones ego.

Speaking of thanks--got to go and prep the goose. Have a good holiday :)

Smackledorfer: He said he was not a theist. He is, therefore, an atheist.

Doesn't follow, however much you'd like to define things that way.

orbister: BMFPitt: He has expressed no opinions on the existence or otherwise of god

Which makes him an agnostic atheist. Just like 99.999% of atheists are.

That depends on how you define "atheist", and whether you consider the term synonymous with either hard or soft atheism.

An atheist is a not-theist. This is language 101. And while I am not a language nazi and have little problem with language changing to serve people, changing how that prefix works serves merely to muddy things and is bad.

You smurf your marklar down that marklar and you only succeed in smurfing everyone's marklar up.

Go smurf a marklar :)

Z-clipped: Oh, wait. I think I see where I could have been more clear and less colloquial. You lose it when I say "an agnostic believes", right?

No. Your problem is that you are confusing matters of knowledge with matters of belief. I know many christians, of whom very, very few would claim to "know" that there is a god. In fact, most of them would say that it is impossible to know, that god is a matter of faith alone.

"I have belief in a deity" is a propositional statement. (i.e either true or false, but not both or neither)

Do you believe in fracklesnirb?

Just boils down to
Guy: Trust those who say things with authority.
Kid: Um, no.

Gergesa: I know I'm late to the party does it strike people as odd that Eric said "and there is a rule that being cannot lie...?" Automatically that subjects that being to the authority of another. It also shows lack of omnipotence. Hmmmm.

I think the point of that is simple... God is not above his own word. If he violated that word, it would invalidate everything... The guy in the video is incorrect, however. God can lie. There is a passage (can't look it up I am mobile atm) which indicates he purposely misdirects or lies to practitioners of the occult.

orbister: Smackledorfer: He said he was not a theist. He is, therefore, an atheist.

Doesn't follow, however much you'd like to define things that way.

It absolutely follows, and I would kindly point out you have deliberately avoided proding an alternate explanation of how the prefix 'a' operates.

2 x God + Jesus / FSM = logzeus (Std dev(Unicorn life span))

j0ndas: Atheism, incidently, is a religion too.

Z-clipped: Not by any accepted definition of the word "religion". You can argue that there is faith involved in atheism that is arrived at by rational means, because all logic and rational thought is based upon unproven axioms, but that's not remotely similar to being a religion.

Since we're quibbling about terminology, the correct term is life stance.

Atheism and Christianity are both life stances.

The meaning is similar, though apparently not exactly the same as, weltanschauung or worldview.

HighZoolander: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

Naw, hell has been in a cooling trend for the past 15 years. By the time the kid gets there it will probably have frozen over already.

Then again, maybe not.

Smackledorfer: An atheist is a not-theist. This is language 101. And while I am not a language nazi and have little problem with language changing to serve people, changing how that prefix works serves merely to muddy things and is bad.

Theism is belief in god. The prefix can work on either the belief part (that's weak, negative or soft atheism) or it can work on the god part (that's strong, positive or hard atheism). Too many people here are assuming that only the hard atheist position exists.

ktybear: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts

Not that I'm defending this guy, but I wonder if he was trying to dumb down and poorly explain the end logical result of the assumption of divinity in the problem of free will - without considering the required assumptions.

The conundrum goes like this:
- We know that everything in the known world appears to respond to the same natural laws; mix two chemicals together in exactly the same way, you get the same result, drop a leaf in the air, and gravity will pull it to the ground, etc. There may be conditions or mechanisms that we don't understand, but the important thing is that we can all agree that they're consistently applied.
- If we assume the previous statement to be true, it must also apply to our brains; our thoughts apparently being nothing more than a series of electrochemical interactions.
- This means that we cannot have free will, only the illusion of free will

... unless ...

- The physical body and the formless Mind are separate, and the Mind, not being physical, is not subject to the rules of the world.
- For that to happen, there must be an interface that allows the mind to both send and receive instructions/information from the body, but science shows no such thing happening
- One 'solution' to this is that a supernatural entity provides the interface on our behalf.
- If the above assumption is true, we must realize that all we perceive must be passed through the 'filter' of that entity; everything we see and experience is limited to what that entity chooses to let us see and experience. It's like the matrix: they have complete control, and it's so perfect that there's no way to realize you're hooked up to the simulation. Or, if you prefer, the Allegory of the Cave, where divinity is the source of the firelight.

Here's where it becomes both illogical and circular
- Given those previous assumptions, we can then assume the existence of god as a per-requisite of free will
- Assume we DO have free will
- Therefore, anything an individual would know of the world is provided to us by god.
- We appear to perceive the world and collect information about it
- Thus god must exist

Hey - I'm not condoning this line of thought, but I have seen this sort of mental sophistry from college professors who happened to be pastors teaching 3'd year philosophy courses. You have to make some pretty big assumptions though. I could see it filtered down into, "Since you can perceive the world, god must exist."

Personally, I'm a nihilist. :)

j0ndas: You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity

Gawdzila: Do even you know what you mean when you say "evolve through random chance"?

No.

Next question?

eraser8: Smackledorfer: eraser8: I'm going to correct you because you're wrong: quantum field theory has demonstrated absolutely that something can come from nothing.

As far as I was aware we could get SOMETHING from nothing, but we don't know if we could get everything from nothing (so perhaps I misspoke above) and we still can't get energy from nothing. So still no scientific explanation for how absolute nothing can create a big bang.

But then I didn't take physics at the university level, so I could be quite behind and in the dark on these things.

If you're really interested, a good primer on the subject is Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

It's completely accessible to the layman (otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to understand it).

It is an excellent book. For more than simply for that - it's also an excellent explanation of how we learn and create knowledge.

Asa Phelps: the guy keeps talking about certainty.

Faith != Certainty.

Faith is belief in the absence of knowledge. Knowledge is literally the enemy of faith. If you had a perfect knowledge of God, you would have no faith. If you claim to have a perfect knowledge of God, you're a liar, and you're probably selling something.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.

Feral_and_Preposterous: 0Icky0: Yogimus: Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief?

No, but I'm willing to try.
What have you got that might cause it?

Climb in a phonebooth and I'll toss you a hand grenade?

So you think religion is little more than a security blanket to shield us from our natural fear of death? Isn't that insulting to the truly religious? (And to God, if He exists?)

Orange-Pippin: Z-clipped: Orange-Pippin: Why even bother unless the motive is to prop yourself up in some way?

Perhaps some of us are just happy that it's not 1480, and we're thankful that we can have such a discussion without being burned at the stake?

Indeed, although being thankful for freedom of speech and freedom of religion is another discussion is it not? I was referring to the need to debate passionate subject in this century and the correlation to ones ego.

Speaking of thanks--got to go and prep the goose. Have a good holiday :)

I have never tasted Goose.... could you descibe it when you see this please?

And, btw, we aren't talking about a change to language in which a word picks up a new meaning, like "gay".

You can be a gay gay, or a gay non-gay, or a non-gay non-gay, or a non-gay gay.
You can be a happy homosexual, a happy straight, a not-happy straight, or a not-happy homosexual.

In terms of words gaining new meanings, and even potentially losing an old one that isn't used, then there is certainly room for people to run into language and communication issues if they use different definitions of the word, particularly if one side is using an uncommon definition of the word.

However in this case we are talking about THEISM, a word that I believe we are all on pretty even footing regarding its usage. What we are evidently now debating is how the prefix a- operates.

Can you link me to anything, or provide any examples other than atheist, that would result in a- functioning in a that allows one to be neither theist nor atheist? I rather doubt it. This means that atheist is not a term gaining new meaning based on ignorant masses misusing it for a long enough time. It is not the result of language growing to encompass changing ideas. It is just a bunch of people being wrong, not wanting to admit it, and disliking the stigma that admitting they are atheist attaches - a stigma that wouldn't exist if they could stop jumping on this ridiculous bandwagon.

Although I kind of suspect that a lot of this is mere trolling, because I never encounter the resistance to the definitions of theist and atheist irl anywhere close to what we see on the internet.

orbister: kkinnison: As a person who is religious, i believe that God is so great he created a mature universe.

With all sorts of things like leftover radiation from the Big bang? That's quite a back story. How do you know he didn't do it last Tuesday - or are you happy with the idea that he might have done it last Tuesday?

Don't matter to me if he did it Tuesday or yesterday.

So like Iran, but with worse math skills?

What about that awkward moment? You forgot to finish, subby.

/farking hate that meme

Smackledorfer: Can you link me to anything, or provide any examples other than atheist, that would result in a- functioning in a that allows one to be neither theist nor atheist?

That's not the point. The point is that it is possible to be atheist and yet not disbelieve in god. Obsession with the labels is masking the underlying positions.

INeedAName: mamoru: INeedAName: someone encoded them for us

Just in humans or in any organism which shows behaviors that fit the description of "love and compassion"?

In general. It seems like such an antithetical thing when compared to baser instincts of survival. It just seems to make no sense in the grand scheme of things to risk your life and everything you have for someone else's survival. Yet there are people who devote their lives to it (religious or not) and it blows me away.

What part of "social animal" don't you understand? If humans were solitary animals, like great white sharks, then your point makes sense. But we're not. We're deeply social animals. We've gotten as far as we have, and rule the world like we do because, in a large part, to that aspect of our species. Altruism is a common survival strategy in social animals. There's nothing magical or mystical about it.

orbister: Smackledorfer: An atheist is a not-theist. This is language 101. And while I am not a language nazi and have little problem with language changing to serve people, changing how that prefix works serves merely to muddy things and is bad.

Theism is belief in god. The prefix can work on either the belief part (that's weak, negative or soft atheism) or it can work on the god part (that's strong, positive or hard atheism). Too many people here are assuming that only the hard atheist position exists.

I'm confused. A moment ago you were insisting that one can be neither a theist nor an atheist. Now you are telling me that what the person who claimed to be neither actually is is a "soft atheist" (which therefore means they are an atheist, and not a theist). Did you mistype that paragraph?

Seems more like too many people, exactly one Orbister too many, is busy telling me that "soft atheism" and "hard atheism" would apparently not fall under the greater realm of "atheism" on a venn diagram. The fact that there are multiple types of atheism (hard, soft, whatever boils your egg) or theist is irrelevant to the fact one is either a theist, or NOT a theist.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Nope. I think the question is undefined. I take neither position. I assign no truth value to it. Neither 0 nor 1.

If you actually don't even understand the concept of what a god is (not that I actually believe you, just hypothetically) then logically you can't believe in one. That would make you an atheist.

orbister: That depends on how you define "atheist", and whether you consider the term synonymous with either hard or soft atheism.

If you define it correctly, as the lack of belief in god(s), then you are right. If you define it incorrectly, as the belief in a lack of god(s), then you are wrong.

You know what I find disgusting? The fact that someone would impregnate his own daughter with himself for the sole purpose of torturing himself in front of an audience. That is one really perverted mentally sick person.

You can't assert 100% knowledge for or against something that would have the power to manipulate that knowledge.

IOW, you can't say for sure there is or isn't an omnipotent "god" if its power includes the ability to shape reality and mask its presence.

orbister: He has expressed no opinions on the existence or otherwise of god

This is immaterial.

orbister: Supposing he believes in a god meeting three of your criteria, but not the fourth. The statement would be false, but that doesn't make him an atheist.

But then another, fairly equivalent statement/question would be true, and he'd be a theist! This is not the position he's taking. He's saying that the question is 100% meaningless, essentially because the word 'god' is 100% meaningless. But it isn't. No matter how vague the definition you use, it still has meaning, and you can still believe or not believe it exists.

ThrobblefootSpectre: It's like the question of whether snarfurble is weebfuben.

Except that those words are currently meaningless, but "god" is most certainly not. However, if I ask what a snarfurble is, and you tell me it's a fish, it's not necessary for me to know how big it is, or whether it's scaly or not, or whether it lives in the Atlantic or the Pacific to make certain judgements about it. If "weebfuben" means "a shade of red", I don't need to know exactly what shade to conceive of a fish that's a shade of red.

Calling the word "god" completely meaningless because it is not completely defined is illogical.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Look, I understand you want to believe everyone is atheist. I get it. But you can't simply rant at people and make it so. Same for christians who insist I must believe as they do.

Not at all! As I said, I don't care either way what you believe or don't believe. If you don't want to answer the question, you can say "I'd rather not say" and I'll have no problem whatsoever... but "agnostic" isn't, and will never be a coherent answer to the question "Are you a theist or an atheist?/Do you believe in a deity?".

reklamfox: Smackledorfer:

Maybe not at the end of the day, but certainly at the end of my days.

/I'm kinda hoping I'm wrong about no god, or at least wrong about no afterlife.

That statement right there explains why so much of the world holds some type of religious belief in the afterlife. Because it is painful and uncomfortable for us to think that our loved ones and ourselves cease to exist at the moment of death. It's not nice to think about this as being the only life we get, and when we die we fade into nothingness. The mind has a hard time wrapping it's self around the concept of "nothingness". It's like trying to imagine what life was like pre-birth.

We don't like to think that we will never see our friends and family again when we all die, it's much nicer and more pleasant to imagine that we all live forever in some type of magical place with all the people we've ever loved surrounding us. It doesn't make any sense at all to believe this way, and there certainly isn't any evidence to back it up, but it sure makes us feel better. We don't have to be as scared of death if we don't believe it's truly the end. That's all religious dogma really is, a way of making us feel better about death. If we go on for all eternity after we shuffle off the mortal coil, then there is nothing to fear and we are no longer uncomfortable. Problem solved.

This is a simple explanation that I believe holds true for the afterlife dogma of all religions.

So, my personal conclusion is that there is no all-seeing, all-knowing omnipotent being, but I do however believe there is an afterlife in the form of reincarnation and ghosts. Where do I fit in?

orbister: That's not the point.

When you told me a moment ago that someone could be both not a theist and not an atheist, that was in fact the point.

orbister: The point is that it is possible to be atheist and yet not disbelieve in god.

Absolutely. Who is arguing that it is impossible to be atheist and yet not disbelieve in god?

A theist believes in god.
Everyone else is an atheist, whether that is an affirmative belief that there is NO god, or whether it is a simple lack of affirmative belief that there IS a god.

So either logjammin believes in god, or he does not believe in god. The latter position includes all of atheism, the former all of theism, and there are numerous more specific terms within both. There is, however, no overlap on a venn diagram of the two terms, and nothing that exists outside of the two circles either. You yourself a moment ago told me logjammin is neither an atheist nor a theist, yet since you've already termed his beliefs as "soft atheism" which, fwiw, falls under the blanket of atheism.

orbister: Obsession with the labels is masking the underlying positions.

The only people muddying things up are the poeple like you, who not only insist on making your own terminology up, but are also changing your arguments as we go. You don't get more muddied than that.

cynicalbastard: I'm singularly unimpressed by Pascal's Wager, and I still believe it was written when Pascal was having a really off day, probably after being kicked in the head by a mule. It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith.

Speaking of off days, that's a really weak objection to Pascal's Wager, because his argument can be redeemed so trivially.

All you need to do is expand it from
(A) Do I believe in Christianity?
-or-
(B) Do I not believe in Christianity?

To
(A) Do I believe in Christianity?,
(B) Do I believe in some other religion?
-or-
(C) Do I not believe in any religion?

Or, if you want a more binary approach,
(A) Should I believe in any religion?
(B) If the answer to (A) is yes, should I believe in Christianity?
(C) If the answer to (A) is yes, and the answer to (B) is no, which religion should I believe in?

Pascal's Wager is presented as if Atheism and Christianity were the only two possibilities to consider for the sake of simplicity, and because he wasn't expecting anyone who read his argument to care much about other religions. That's not a fundamental aspect or shortcoming of the argument itself, however.

gremlin1: Fark Me To Tears: gremlin1: I find the idea of a 9000 year old Earth ridiculous

Good. The earth is only 6000 years old.

Oh... and Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. He had to tranquilize the 'raptors to keep things manageable.

I just want to know how Noah managed to keep the rabbits down to just two.

Well, they did have to feed the Lions, Tigers and Bears.

If you're an atheist that doesn't disbelieve in god you are not an atheist. You can point to various definitions you find online or historical philosophers who have said otherwise, but that's just a continuation of atheist dogma similar to theist dogma. You are some other sub-variant of supposed atheism contrived by atheists so they can still call themselves "atheist" without having to find some other definition for your beliefs, and/or escape the same "faith" criticisms atheists like to level at religious people.

/generally agnostic

KrispyKritter: Yogimus: The best part about having faith is that it does not require constant validation through argument.

While the fellow in the video may not have come across well - because he didn't - some people do fail to realize that 'faith' is the key word. Some have faith in the Lord, faith that God is the creator and faith that accepting Jesus as one's savior is the path to Heaven. Faith is a personal belief. Some folks choose to hold on firmly to a scientific theory. Those folks have faith in that scientific theory. A scientific theory that is man made opinion but not proven fact. Faith is a big word, so is theory.

Hey, someone else doesn't know what 'scientific theory' actually is.

Hint: It's not a wild-ass guess that can't be proven..

doofusgumby: Hector Remarkable: Yogimus: strobe: Time is cubed

would be awesome if he was right.

You worship Satanic impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

Opposite Creation dooms human singularity. There's no human entity, only corner Cubics,
rotating life's 4 corner stage metamorphosis.

FYI: a cube has eight corners.

Allow me to explain the joke to you.

Twist-42: believe what you want and shut your pie hole

This is a dangerous philosophy.

Ablejack: Ow My Balls: It's pretty easy.

No, it's not that easy. It is easy however not to really consider the question.

It is pretty easy for non-delusional types.

(1) No evidence. Zero. None. This is not even debatable until evidence is supplied and verified.
(2) And yet specifics are claimed to be known.
(3) There are ulterior motives for believing it's true. Lots of them.
(4) It seems very, very fake. To great levels of absurdity.

If I'm wrong and people like this guy in the video is right, then God is a serious prick.

Again, if it suits you to believe, and you're not using it for some sort of delusional power-play, then knock yourselves out...but keep it out of lawmaking endeavors.

It is pretty easy.  Have a great day.

Z-clipped: I'll have no problem whatsoever... but "agnostic" isn't, and will never be a coherent answer to the question "Are you a theist or an atheist?/Do you believe in a deity?".

I've never seen people have more trouble comprehending venn diagrams than when it comes to religion and they run around in circles trying to avoid a label that holds a stigma to them.

Smackledorfer: Seems more like too many people, exactly one Orbister too many, is busy telling me that "soft atheism" and "hard atheism" would apparently not fall under the greater realm of "atheism" on a venn diagram. The fact that there are multiple types of atheism (hard, soft, whatever boils your egg) or theist is irrelevant to the fact one is either a theist, or NOT a theist.

However much you wish your confusion with simple binary models, neither life no belief is quite that simple. If I say "I do not believe in the absence of god" does that make me a theist, and atheist or neither?

lordjupiter: If you're an atheist that doesn't disbelieve in god you are not an atheist. You can point to various definitions you find online or historical philosophers who have said otherwise, but that's just a continuation of atheist dogma similar to theist dogma. You are some other sub-variant of supposed atheism contrived by atheists so they can still call themselves "atheist" without having to find some other definition for your beliefs, and/or escape the same "faith" criticisms atheists like to level at religious people.

/generally agnostic

So other people can define terms and explain what they mean, how prefixes work, the etymology of the word, etc, but all of that rubbish is just dogmatic mumbo jumbo. But you can make up whatever definition you want, and that's that.

/you are of below average intelligence.
//I'm bored to respond to that drivel.

Z-clipped: Ablejack: The term that needs defining in this argument is atheist.
Z-clipped: Believe me... I've been trying! It's not a complicated idea, but some people seem very reluctant to forgo their preconceptions.
Ablejack: The argument is settled once you both agree on one or the other.
Z-clipped: Actually, I think log_jammin's issue is more complex than that.

I know. But log_jammin is a smart guy, he will understand the difference between those definitions. At least he will see why you (and I) consider his position as atheist. I think that's what you want here and that is what makes it frustrating. I also think it would be OK for log_jammin' to continue thinking of himself as he chooses in this matter regardless of our reasons.
I tend to think his position is something like:
1) He does not believe in god.
2) He realizes the possibility that there is a god who is independent of his belief.
3) ......
4)Profit!
OK, I'm having fun, and assuming a lot, but I think that for log_jamming knowing that possibility means he is not an atheist. Once again I think all you want is for him to get it - your position. I mean it really is of no consequence to you what he considers himself.

If religious people spent this much time evangelizing why I must be pigeonholed into their particular -ism, I could see why people would think they are annoying .

Smackledorfer: You yourself a moment ago told me logjammin is neither an atheist nor a theist, yet since you've already termed his beliefs as "soft atheism" which, fwiw, falls under the blanket of atheism.

"Atheism" is not a useful term unless clearly split into "hard atheism" and "soft atheism".

INeedAName: [T]here is a purposeful choice made by people that seems to go against

what I understand the natural order of things to be.

It's your understanding that is at fault here.

rufus-t-firefly: Hint: It's not a wild-ass guess that can't be proven..

Except in theoretical physics, where they let the scientific side down by calling any wild, unsupported model a theory. String theory isn't a theory, folks.

Orange-Pippin: Have a good holiday :)

You as well! Enjoy the goose!
/wish I was eatin' goose tonight...

orbister: That depends on how you define "atheist", and whether you consider the term synonymous with either hard or soft atheism.

He just did define it:
"soft"/weak atheism = agnostic atheism
"hard"/strong atheism = gnostic atheism

orbister: Doesn't follow, however much you'd like to define things that way.

LOL. You're flailing now.

"2 is less than 4, true or false?"
"Neither, because I don't know it's 2 apples or two oranges!"

orbister: Your problem is that you are confusing matters of knowledge with matters of belief

On the contrary, I'm specifically differentiating between them!

orbister: Do you believe in fracklesnirb?

Give me a basic idea of what it is, and I'll tell you.

ciberido: Since we're quibbling about terminology, the correct term is life stance.

Thank you.

orbister: Too many people here are assuming that only the hard atheist position exists.

You're confused. The opposite is true.

orbister: The point is that it is possible to be atheist and yet not disbelieve in god.

Haven't we been over the difference between "absence of belief" and "belief in the absence of" already?... Oh wait, yeah... way back here when you asked me to clarify, and I told you it was the bolded statement I was discussing:

orbister: Please be more specific. Do you mean "whether or not we hold the belief that it exists" or "whether we hold the belief that it exists or the belief that it doesn't exist"?

Are you trolling now, or have you already forgotten this?

The All-Powerful Atheismo: log_jammin: DisregardTheFollowing: It's late, and I'm drunk. But I'm pretty sure that under opposite circumstances, that still would have blown my mind.
That line of reasoning leads me to wonder why we do not worship Judas. If it wasn't for that guy, our Savior wouldn't have been provided the opportunity to die for my sins. It wasn't his fault anyway. As soon as he ate the morsel Jesus gave him, the devil entered him. Why did Jesus feed him the devil?

I remember being really really confused about the jesus thing as a kid. specifically, "why did jesus have to die for our sins? couldn't god just do something about or sins instead of letting his son die? wait, he didn't let him die, he made him die."

about the time I stared wondering about that I decided I'd rather sleep in on sundays.

I was tripped up very early on by the logical nonsense of the bible and about 80% of the things that occur in it, especially in Genesis and Exodus. And yes I was forced to go to sunday school as a kid.

My parents never went to church. A neighbour lady told me about sunday school when i was about 4 and i wanted to go because it sounded fun. I went, and for the first few years, i believed, as a child is wont to do. The older I got, and the more capable of independant and logical thought, the more I questioned what I was taught, and the further away I moved from belief. As an adult who has seen and heard of horrible things happening to good people for no good reason, the more i reject the idea that a god described as loving and omnipotent could even exist, because were I such a being, I would not permit such atrocities to occur.

Ow My Balls:
If I'm wrong and people like this guy in the video is right, then God is a serious prick.

You think the world is so terrible that if there is a god he is a prick?! Sorry man.
/but on the other hand it does offer us lots of opportunities!