Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Patheos)   That awkward moment when a creationist gets outwitted by a sixth grader   ( patheos.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Hemant Mehtas, Portland State University, existence of God, ancient Greeks, innovations  
•       •       •

36010 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Nov 2012 at 1:38 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-21 09:58:15 PM  
20 votes:
"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
2012-11-22 01:48:09 AM  
12 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
2012-11-21 09:40:21 PM  
11 votes:
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.
2012-11-21 09:50:22 PM  
8 votes:
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.
2012-11-21 09:24:15 PM  
8 votes:
Wow that must be embarrassing for that guy. And it should be embarrassing for everyone who agrees with him, but it won't be.
2012-11-21 09:34:02 PM  
7 votes:
I like that you can't know 2+2=4 unless you know everything everywhere.
2012-11-21 09:26:25 PM  
7 votes:
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!
2012-11-22 12:29:11 AM  
6 votes:

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.
2012-11-21 10:51:54 PM  
6 votes:

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.
2012-11-22 02:43:08 AM  
4 votes:
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.
2012-11-22 02:28:48 AM  
4 votes:
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?
2012-11-22 06:24:49 AM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.comView Full Size


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...
2012-11-22 02:29:31 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-11-22 02:04:19 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-11-21 11:44:46 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-11-21 10:09:59 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-11-23 07:23:35 AM  
2 votes:

Ablejack: 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!


Let me explain.

Without even considering vast human suffering over the past 2 million years, if God exists as is purported by Christians...

(1) There is a Heaven and Hell created for all humans' afterlives.

(2) To attain eligibility for Heaven, one must believe that God and Jesus exist and that Jesus died rather savagely to absorb blame for all of humanity's shortcomings. A person doesn't even necessarily need to behave well, just to believe that the historic fact actually occurred, and to qualify, they must come to this realization at one point while still alive, even if just for one millisecond before death.

If not, the person is banished to Hell where they are tortured in perpetuity. (Cue the George Carlin clip..."But he loves you.")

(3) A person not present at that one specific point in history (around 30 A.D. or so) is not afforded the opportunity to observe it. God and Jesus hide from you despite your needing to believe they exist and the crucifixion has implications on your eligibility for Heaven instead of Hell.

(4) Either they're pricks for this, or they don't exist in the first place and it's as absurd as it sounds. The latter makes much more clear sense to me.

Also, God, who is reportedly all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and ever-present has allowed innumerable instances of capricious human suffering that have nothing to do with free will, from childhood terminal diseases and sexual abuse to full-scale genocide. Either they're pricks for this, or they don't exist and it's as absurd as it sounds. The latter makes much more clear sense to me.

There is no good reason to believe "God" exists as purported by Christians, nor is there any good reason to believe any other unobservable deity exists as purported by other religions...other than it makes scared people feel some amount of inner peace via false hope and it gives people in power an easy vehicle to control their subordinates. (I realize that without religion, those in power would merely find some other way to control subordinates...). The only reason people believe the stuff is because of culture, because they are told so by people wearing funny costumes and are threatened with some degree of ostracism if they don't look to participate. There is no microscope or telescope that gives one shred of direct evidence for the existence of a personified creator and manager of the whole universe, or even part of it.  That fact is not yet even debatable.
2012-11-23 04:40:03 AM  
2 votes:
i296.photobucket.comView Full Size


You've got to learn to think for yourselves, but only "Bob" can show you how.
2012-11-22 10:29:40 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-22 09:35:27 AM  
2 votes:
thetechnohobo.comView Full Size
2012-11-22 06:28:25 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-22 02:45:14 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-22 02:21:56 AM  
2 votes:
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
2012-11-22 02:14:36 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-22 01:45:54 AM  
2 votes:
The best part about having faith is that it does not require constant validation through argument.
2012-11-22 01:22:03 AM  
2 votes:

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).
2012-11-21 10:14:44 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-23 09:20:45 PM  
1 vote:

Ow My Balls: (3) A person not present at that one specific point in history (around 30 A.D. or so) is not afforded the opportunity to observe it. God and Jesus hide from you despite your needing to believe they exist and the crucifixion has implications on your eligibility for Heaven instead of Hell.


And their usual answer to this question is to say that God will take into account their ignorance and judge them by their acts, and not by their faith in Jesus.

Which, of course, renders Christ and Christianity to be totally unnecessary in the farking first place. But they never get that far in their thought process.
2012-11-23 06:40:25 PM  
1 vote:

lordjupiter:
Logic is not your strong suit.


There are a lot of self professed atheists on Fark including myself. What percentage of us do you think are actually using the definition as you propose it.

I'll give you a hint ... none of the famous atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins do. In fact, only one atheist that I have ever talked to or traded posts with made the absolute claim that god does not/can not exist.

You are taking the Latin prefix 'a' to mean 'the opposite of' when in fact a common use is 'without'. I am without belief in god. I do not make any claims about god. I am an atheist.

/sorry if that doesn't fit neatly into your own personal little "world of logic"
2012-11-22 11:51:23 PM  
1 vote:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg
2012-11-22 11:45:57 PM  
1 vote:
i627.photobucket.comView Full Size
2012-11-22 11:39:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 am christian. I have examined my faith. That is so far from a fundamental belief of mine that this is the first time I ever heard of the concept, and it is clearly entirely ridiculous.

But then I find most "common beliefs" of Christians to be entirely ridiculous. My biggest pet peeve is the ones that say "god has a plan for you". NO. NO. NO. We have FREE WILL. Without FREE WILL there is no point to anything. If God has a plan for us that implies he is deciding for us, which we know he is not because he gave us free will. God knows what will happen to you, but that is entirely different from him having a plan for you. The reason I really hate this in particular is because I have met so many people who keep screwing up their lives and then always return to "all part of gods plan" after doing so. NO IT ISN'T YOU @#$^&*. God has no plan for you. He wants you to get up off your ass and do something to fix your life, even though he knows perfectly well that you will continue on your usual pattern of praying and reading the bible for a few weeks, then losing your self control, getting drunk or high, and losing your job or hurting your loved ones, or whatever else it is you do to ruin your life repeatedly. Bad news bud. God isn't fixing that for you, church isn't fixing that for you. You, support from friends, family, and church, and possibly some meds made by some very smart atheist scientists, are the only way that is getting fixed.
2012-11-22 04:11:34 PM  
1 vote:

Ablejack: What about information that moves faster than the speed of light? I'm talking about those crazy binary atoms that 'switch' simultaneously and instantly no matter how distant.


That's called quantum entanglement, or just entanglement. It doesn't have to be just a pair of quantum objects, it can be a system of more than two. No useful information can be transmitted ftl, btw. And yes, it is weird as hell, as is non-locality in general. There's some seriously spooky shiat going on at that level.
2012-11-22 12:44:12 PM  
1 vote:
As imaginary friends go, I have always preferred Batman.

/the car
//the cave
//the coolness
2012-11-22 11:46:25 AM  
1 vote:

Ablejack: lordjupiter:
This is not spaghetti monster or invisible unicorn shiat. Assertion of the existence of something we simply can't disprove is not the same as assertion of an omnipotent god in control of all reality (and if the unicorn or monster is given these powers, then it's the same as asking about the existence of god). One is a logical fallacy, the other is an existential question about the nature of reality and the ability to know believe something unknowable by defintion, not just perception or evidence.

better? I just wanted to make the distinction that there are those who believe in god, yet understand the question to be unknowable. There are plenty of them.



That doesn't change anything I said, though. Not sure why this distinction is necessary.
2012-11-22 11:14:32 AM  
1 vote:

ciberido: Certainly very many people believe that their religion is something they can choose. A lot of religious (and ex-religious) people struggle with doubt, even for entire lifetimes. If that isn't "making a conscious decision," then I'd like to know what you think IS. 
In short, if ANYTHING is a choice, then believing or not believing in a religion most certainly is a choice (for some people some of the time, at least).


First, you can certainly choose your religion. You do not choose to believe in the color blue or gremlins.
The person who spends a lifetime struggling with doubt about god however does so precisely because he realizes one does not necessarily choose what he believes in. That struggle is often self-reflection to 'discover' your belief. Perhaps conflict with wanting to believe and finding it difficult. It would be easy to pick one and go with it, but that is different than really believing. Can't you imagine that someone might want to believe but doesn't? How would that be possible if it were simply a choice?
2012-11-22 11:04:58 AM  
1 vote:

ThrobblefootSpectre: And yet you've spent hours trying to get me to profess to your -ism.


Nah. I'm just trying to disabuse you of the notion that every subject has a easy, non-confrontational, middle-ground position you can fall back to. On that note, if you go to court and the judge asks if you plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", I don't recommend saying, "Neither, Your Honor. I'm agnostic."

Smackledorfer: You can't define whether one is trolling or not. Is he a hard troll or a soft troll? Your terminology is meaningless and confusing without adding specificity, and he will argue to the death that one cannot include "soft troll" and "hard trolling" in a circle labeled "troll" on a venn diagram.


Agnostroll?

Ryan2065: Atheist means "believes god does not exist." I realize you two are trying to make everyone use the strict logical definition of atheist, but society has decided to go with a different definition. Just accept it and move on.


Actually, what you typed is the strict form of atheism. And most people that have any education are well aware that there is a difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism.
2012-11-22 10:36:25 AM  
1 vote:
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 .
2012-11-22 10:28:21 AM  
1 vote:

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..
2012-11-22 10:26:58 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 10:22:08 AM  
1 vote:

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?".
2012-11-22 10:19:29 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 10:19:01 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 09:59:28 AM  
1 vote:
Just boils down to
Guy: Trust those who say things with authority.
Kid: Um, no.
2012-11-22 09:23:30 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 09:22:29 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 08:48:06 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 08:39:16 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 08:31:08 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 08:06:39 AM  
1 vote:
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
2012-11-22 07:55:27 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 07:49:22 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 07:29:21 AM  
1 vote:

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. :)
2012-11-22 07:10:48 AM  
1 vote:

INeedAName: someone encoded them for us


Just in humans or in any organism which shows behaviors that fit the description of "love and compassion"?
2012-11-22 06:35:35 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 05:13:06 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 05:05:18 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 04:59:47 AM  
1 vote:

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?
2012-11-22 04:48:02 AM  
1 vote:

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 ;)
2012-11-22 04:46:50 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 04:35:30 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 04:31:00 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 04:21:02 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 04:20:55 AM  
1 vote:
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
2012-11-22 04:20:44 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 04:11:58 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 03:42:21 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 03:37:08 AM  
1 vote:
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!
2012-11-22 03:21:05 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 03:05:17 AM  
1 vote:

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.comView Full Size
2012-11-22 02:46:31 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:46:00 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:40:03 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 02:38:27 AM  
1 vote:
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
2012-11-22 02:37:28 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:35:11 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:34:17 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-22 02:33:11 AM  
1 vote:
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? 

jennysb5world.3owl.comView Full Size
2012-11-22 02:33:05 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:32:21 AM  
1 vote:
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?
2012-11-22 02:32:17 AM  
1 vote:

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*
2012-11-22 02:27:32 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:24:21 AM  
1 vote:
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.."
2012-11-22 02:22:59 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:21:40 AM  
1 vote:
Oh, and a two year old repeating "why" could have beaten this schmuck.
2012-11-22 02:16:17 AM  
1 vote:
indeed. pocket ninja is our god. go find your own!
2012-11-22 02:14:04 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-22 02:14:01 AM  
1 vote:

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)
2012-11-22 02:06:09 AM  
1 vote:

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


You don't have enough black mana to cast that.
2012-11-22 01:50:47 AM  
1 vote:

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
2012-11-22 01:49:41 AM  
1 vote:

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
2012-11-22 01:37:40 AM  
1 vote:

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
2012-11-22 12:43:00 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-21 11:33:54 PM  
1 vote:
Damn, that's some tortured masturbatory logic.

Dimwitted zealots.
2012-11-21 10:30:57 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-11-21 10:27:38 PM  
1 vote:

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.


i236.photobucket.comView Full Size
2012-11-21 10:04:41 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-21 09:50:57 PM  
1 vote:
2012-11-21 09:42:48 PM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 99 of 99 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report