...Because there is no proof that god exists.

Comments?

Is there proof that god doesn't exist? The only safe argument is staying on the fence.

prove to us that god IS real and we'll have a decent conversation then... for now... all bible thumpers and kaballa readers STFU

kkthx

quote:Originally posted by nothingmoregirl:

prove to us that god IS real and we'll have a decent conversation then... for now... all bible thumpers and kaballa readers STFU

kkthx

Is that directed at me? I don't think you understood my post. Believing there is no god is just as ignorant as believing there is a god. There is no evidence for either side. Atheism requires the same blind faith that theism requires.

quote:Originally posted by madhatter2k:

...Because there is no proof that god exists.

Comments?

Why don't you send your wits out to be sharpened...

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

Atheism requires the same blind faith that theism requires.

Does it? There's Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism. One basically says, no, there is no God, while the latter just states that, given the evidence, there is probably no God. And since I see no proof of, say, a dead monkey in my backpack, I can safely assume there is not, in fact, a dead monkey in my backpack.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Does it? There's Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism. One basically says, no, there is no God, while the latter just states that, given the evidence, there is probably no God..

probably? That's not much of a theology if you ask me. Is there also a name for people who think that there probably is a god? I didn't know atheism was so vague.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

And since I see no proof of, say, a dead monkey in my backpack, I can safely assume there is not, in fact, a dead monkey in my backpack.

What if you didn't have the slightest clue what a dead monkey is? What if you didn't even know where to begin when trying to visualize a dead monkey? What if the very nature of a dead monkey was completly unknown to you? (is it a physical object, an abstract idea, a thought, an emotion, perhaps something you can never comprehend) How would you know for sure?

quote:Originally posted by madhatter2k:

...Because there is no proof that god exists.

Comments?

Prove that God doesn't exist!!

There is no proof that He doesn't exist!

PPL LIKE YOU! GIVE ATHEIST A BAD REP.

YOU COMING ON HERE AND SAYING SOMETHING AS IGNORANT AND UNINTELLIGENT AS THAT ONLY HURTS YOU! UNTIL YOU GO AND ADD THE WORD ATHEIST TO IT. ATHEIST'S DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD BUT I CAN'T THINK OF ONE WHO WOULD SAY SOMETHING SO CHEESY, AND STUPID AS WHAT YOU SAID.

I don't even believe in God, but I wouldn't say something that stupid!!!!! At least give arguments to support what you say instead of coming off so dumb.

BTW: You should change your name to atheist embarasser, or survived abortion.

AND ANOTHER THING JUST OCCURED TO ME.



PROOF THAT THERE IS NO PROOF, IS PROOF ENOUGH OF GOD'S EXISTANCE.

APPARENTLY HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE SEEN SO HIM BEING GOD AND ALL CAN MAKE SURE THAT HE'S NOT SEEN.

THE ATHEISTS' I NORMALLY ENCOUNTER ON HERE COME ACROSS INTELLIGENT THINGS LIKE THAT SAID ABOVE AND THEN A OPENMINDED INTELLIGENT ARGUEMENT INSUES.

DON'T COME ON HERE WITH LOADS OF CRAP LIKE WHAT YOU SAID.

(The capitalized text, is me shouting)

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 03-22-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 03-22-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 03-22-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 03-23-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

What if you didn't have the slightest clue what a dead monkey is? What if you didn't even know where to begin when trying to visualize a dead monkey? What if the very nature of a dead monkey was completly unknown to you? (is it a physical object, an abstract idea, a thought, an emotion, perhaps something you can never comprehend) How would you know for sure?

For the thousandth time, atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a theology. And for the thousandth time, you CAN NOT prove a universal negative. As an atheist, I think it's a safe bet that there is no God. I count the chance that there is one as equivalent to the chance that the sun won't rise tommorrow. Do you take provisions on that eventuality?

And you're arguement that one can never know the nature of God is asinine. By that reasonng, you could claim that God exists as an abstract concept, therefore God exists. The point is that an abstract concept couldn't create the world. An abstract concept won't answer prayers, or judge the living and the dead. There is no God in the real sense of the word. If you want to go pull bullshit semantics, and change the definition of God just to try to claim that one exists, you're an idiot, and you're point is moot.

Metalligod; first and foremost rule of logic: the burden of proof lies upon the pro argument. If no evidence exists; then what it is meant to support does not exist or did not happen.

ok for all of you to know

not/partially believing in god but not being sure is called agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Metalligod; first and foremost rule of logic: the burden of proof lies upon the pro argument. If no evidence exists; then what it is meant to support does not exist or did not happen.



Like I said: quote:PROOF THAT THERE IS NO PROOF, IS PROOF ENOUGH OF GOD'S EXISTANCE.

APPARENTLY HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE SEEN SO HIM BEING GOD AND ALL CAN MAKE SURE THAT HE'S NOT SEEN.



[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 03-23-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by fakeithardx:

not/partially believing in god but not being sure is called agnostic.

Maybe that's what you call it; that's not what I call it.

Who's right? (I'd say neither of us is right absolutely, as language is very subjective)

My definition is based on the etymology of the word; a-theist, not theist. By this definition, anyone who doesn't believe in gods is an atheist.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

For the thousandth time, atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a theology. And for the thousandth time, you CAN NOT prove a universal negative. As an atheist, I think it's a safe bet that there is no God. I count the chance that there is one as equivalent to the chance that the sun won't rise tommorrow. Do you take provisions on that eventuality?.

No, but there's still a chance, right? You're not an atheist unless you absolutely 100% believe there is NO god. Therefore, atheists are just as ignorant as theists. If you're not sure and you don't believe 100% one way or the other, you're agnostic, not atheist. (most people who claim to be atheist are actually agnostic)

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

And you're arguement that one can never know the nature of God is asinine..

Ok, then tell me. What is the nature of god?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

By that reasonng, you could claim that God exists as an abstract concept, therefore God exists. .

No, that wasn't my point. My point is that we are absolutely clueless on the matter of god's existance.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

The point is that an abstract concept couldn't create the world. An abstract concept won't answer prayers, or judge the living and the dead. There is no God in the real sense of the word. If you want to go pull bullshit semantics, and change the definition of God just to try to claim that one exists, you're an idiot, and you're point is moot.

How can I change the definition of god when we don't even have a clear definition to start with? You're trying to change the definition of atheism, something that is clearly defined.

I don't believe that god exists. I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.

The word "god" itself is pretty vague. It is defined as a supreme being or supernatural force, it is also defined as the force, effect, or manifestation of such a being. We don't even know if matter can exist outside of consciousness, so it's possible that consciousness itself is god. We will never understand the universe we live in, because even if there was "proof" of god's existance, how would we know it wasn't just an illusion?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Maybe that's what you call it; that's not what I call it.

Who's right? (I'd say neither of us is right absolutely, as language is very subjective)

My definition is based on the etymology of the word; a-theist, not theist. By this definition, anyone who doesn't believe in gods is an atheist.

No, you have to believe there is no god to be atheist.

Here it is, straight from the dictionary:

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

agnosticism

n 1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" 2: the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge

Just admit it, you're agnostic, not atheist.



[This message has been edited by JMcSmoky (edited 03-23-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

The word "god" itself is pretty vague. It is defined as a supreme being or supernatural force, it is also defined as the force, effect, or manifestation of such a being. We don't even know if matter can exist outside of consciousness, so it's possible that consciousness itself is god. We will never understand the universe we live in, because even if there was "proof" of god's existance, how would we know it wasn't just an illusion?

It's discussions like this that make me hate humanity. We don't know if matter can exist outside of consciousness? Obviously you've never taken a highschool science class, or slept. Then to suggest that consciousness itself is God? So human consciousness willed existance into being? Do you even think about what you type? I'm as certain that there is no God as I am that that gravitational attraction between two objects is GMM/R^2, adjusted for relativity and quantum effects as necessary. I awknolwedge that there is a theorectical possibility that both Newton was wrong (or more so that we has discovered) and that there is a God. Does that change the fact that I believe there to be no God? No. Quit bullshitting semantics.

And everything you see is an illusion. All vision is is a recording of photons hitting your eyes. Descarte dealt with that centuries ago. Forget illusion, ever think you might just be insane? That sort of bullshit doesn't get anyone anywhere. Maybe this is an illusion and there is a God. And maybe that reality with a God is simply an illusion for another where there is no God. When trapped in such logic, reality is what you make of it, and I'd really like to see you try to deal with the assumption that everything you see is an illusion, especially when there is ansolutely nothing so suggest it might be, thus suggesting a perfect illusion, except your being able to concieve of it being so renderes it imperfect, thus voiding it. In this reality, there is absolutely no reason to think a God exists. Therefor my default belief is "There is no God". I have yet to see anything that might suggest that this is not the case. Therefore I believe there is no God.

Your idiot semantics just show you're a little twelve year old who hasn't taken a real class yet an like to pretend he's a "deep, openminded thinker". Being openminded is great an all, but some things are just absurd. I'm sure you'll grow out of it around the time you actually develope a personality.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

It's discussions like this that make me hate humanity. We don't know if matter can exist outside of consciousness? Obviously you've never taken a highschool science class, or slept. .

Are you not familiar with Schroedinger? Can you prove that matter exists outside of consciousness? (by consciousness I don't mean waking life as opposed to being asleep, I mean the awareness of living beings in general) How do you know that matter itself and the perception of matter are not one in the same? By the way, science was my strong subject in high school. In my four years of high school I took Biology, Chem, Advanced Chem, and Calculus-Enhanced Physics, I also took college Chem and Physics. Have you ever even taken a philosophy class?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Then to suggest that consciousness itself is God? So human consciousness willed existance into being?

No, not human consciousness. Consciousness itself. (intelligence, awareness, whatever you want to call it) We all assume that consciousness exists within the universe, right? The theory I'm referring to suggests that the universe exists within consciousness. Again, I don't believe anything, but I like to acknowledge the different possibilities.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I awknolwedge that there is a theorectical possibility that both Newton was wrong (or more so that we has discovered) and that there is a God. Does that change the fact that I believe there to be no God? No. Quit bullshitting semantics..

You're contradicting yourself. How can you believe 100% that there is no god, but also believe there is a possibility that god exists? You are obviously agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I'd really like to see you try to deal with the assumption that everything you see is an illusion, especially when there is ansolutely nothing so suggest it might be, thus suggesting a perfect illusion, except your being able to concieve of it being so renderes it imperfect, thus voiding it. .

Maybe the universe is only a mental construct, shared telepathically by all living beings.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

In this reality, there is absolutely no reason to think a God exists..

This reality exists, right? It's very real to us, so the logical question is "why?" That leads us to the possibility of some sort of creative force.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Your idiot semantics just show you're a little twelve year old who hasn't taken a real class yet an like to pretend he's a "deep, openminded thinker". Being openminded is great an all, but some things are just absurd. I'm sure you'll grow out of it around the time you actually develope a personality.

Is there any reason to attack me personally? You don't know me, and I don't know you. Your childish insults have no bearing on this discussion. Some things are just absurd? Of course! Life is absurd, and the possibilities are endless. How do you know that this 3-dimensional realm is the end-all, be-all of existance?

If you're an Atheist, that means you believe that you have proven the is no god.

Agnostic means you haven't been proven on way or another. If you're using the burden of proof argument, then it's intellectually correct to be an Agnostic because you acknowledge that you don't know either way.

What pisses me off is when Atheists start saying that religions are stupid, or especially intolerant. They are only furthering the stereotype that Atheists are the most intolerant of all religions.

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

Here it is, straight from the dictionary:

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

#1 - which dictionary is the arbiter of the English language? If I bothered to look, I could find a dictionary that agrees with me - why is your dictionary's definition any more correct than mine?

#2 - dictionaries record usage. people define meaning.

A-theist - not theist.

I lack belief in gods, therefore I am not a theist.

Fucking pedants.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

#1 - which dictionary is the arbiter of the English language? If I bothered to look, I could find a dictionary that agrees with me - why is your dictionary's definition any more correct than mine?

#2 - dictionaries record usage. people define meaning.

A-theist - not theist.

I lack belief in gods, therefore I am not a theist.

Fucking pedants.

Are you agnostic? Because if you are agnostic, you should use that word- it's more accurate.

FINALLY!!! the tread i've been waiting for. I'm prety much against bible bangers and jo ho's and muslims and such, as i have no religon. yep. born catholic, but not even baptised. I really have no religon, but recently a friend opened my eyes to an interesting theory. there is a god, but no religon is right. god is just your helper, the little voice inside my head that tells me what's right and what isn't, and something i can look to for guidance. god is what you make of him.

[This message has been edited by vermont (edited 03-23-2004).]

surprised we haven't yet gotten into the semantics of "belief."

Uhhh...the ignorance. Agnosticism is simply doubt; atheism is the belief there is no God whether you think there is a possibility of one existing or not.

I have proof unicorns don't exist; but there is no proof they do. Burden of proof allows me to realize that they don't exist, no matter the possibility of them actually existing. I'm not neutral on the matter: unicorns do not fucking exist because frankly, while the chance exists that they might, the game of chance rolled towards them not existing...unicorns are mythical.

Now replace unicorn with god and you have the atheist mindset you fucking fools.

Atheist; non theist. If you do not praise or believe a god exists; even if you acknowledge that a chance of a god being exists; you are a fucking atheist.

Agnostic is simply doubt on the matter, meaning you think the chance of a god existing is large enough to stay neutral on the matter. If you are not neutral, you are either a light theist, heavy theist, light atheist, or heavy atheist. Quit playing fucking semantics with random dictionary definitions and realize the fucking word describes itself if you know the prefix and the root and what they mean in the english language.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I have proof unicorns don't exist; but there is no proof they do. Burden of proof allows me to realize that they don't exist, no matter the possibility of them actually existing. I'm not neutral on the matter: unicorns do not fucking exist because frankly, while the chance exists that they might, the game of chance rolled towards them not existing...unicorns are mythical.

Bullshit. That's like saying you have proof that aliens don't exist.

Wow...seriously bad typo; fucked the whole posts meaning. I meant to say I have no proof that unicorns don't exist. As the type stands though, it IS as absurd as the alien analogy. I understand that negatives can't be proven.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Wow...seriously bad typo; fucked the whole posts meaning. I meant to say I have no proof that unicorns don't exist. As the type stands though, it IS as absurd as the alien analogy. I understand that negatives can't be proven.

"I understand that negatives can't be proven" = doubt = agnosticism

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

"I understand that negatives can't be proven" = doubt = agnosticism

1/infinity is for all intents and purposes, zero. Thats the chance an openminded atheist will give that there is a god. I awknowledge that the possibility can exist, simply because nothing is impossible, but I still believe there to not be a God. For the sake of an arguement, a christisan can accept the theoretical possibility that there isn't a God, but they still believe.

And as to your earlier comments directed at me, Schrodinger doesan't mean matter might not exist. I don't know which of your philosophy classes mangled and bastardized that, but quantum mechanics means that until something is measured, like the position of an electron, it exists partially in each of the places it hace a chance to be at, and the true position isn't known until it's measured. Actually, there is no true position. The position is chosen at the moment of determination. And I said what I did about your level of education because you seem to lack the most fundamental understanding of what makes up the various things in our universe. And no, I've never taken a college philosophy class, because philosophy is a bullshit discipline, and consists of nothing but conjecture. If you really try to work with the assumption that you know nothing absolutely, then nothing has any meaning anymore. None. So quit trying to come off as more erudite and sophistacated than the rest of us, because it just proves you havn't followed "philosophy" to it's foregone conclusion.

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

"I understand that negatives can't be proven" = doubt = agnosticism

By your definition, not by mine.

I use Thomas Huxley's definition of agnosticism (which makes some sense, as he coined the word).

By his definition, agnosticism means that you don't claim to have hidden knowledge.

Thus, I am an agnostic atheist. (as I do not believe in gods and don't claim to know any more about the matter than anybody else)

Neither definition is absolutely right. Language is dynamic.

You know what I mean, why do you give a damn what words I use to convey it?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

1/infinity is for all intents and purposes, zero. Thats the chance an openminded atheist will give that there is a god. I awknowledge that the possibility can exist, simply because nothing is impossible, but I still believe there to not be a God. For the sake of an arguement, a christisan can accept the theoretical possibility that there isn't a God, but they still believe..

I don't want to argue about the meaning of the word "atheism". I don't really care. I'm only trying to point out that being absolutely 100% atheist, without any doubt whatsoever, requires a leap of faith and is just as illogical as theism. Where do you draw the line between atheism and agnosticism?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

And as to your earlier comments directed at me, Schrodinger doesan't mean matter might not exist...

You misunderstood me. When did I say that matter might not exist? Of course it exists. The question is this: Does it exist separately from the perception of matter? Would the universe exist if there were no conscious lifeforms to observe it? If you don't understand what I mean, then I guess I'm not very good at explaining it.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I don't know which of your philosophy classes mangled and bastardized that, but quantum mechanics means that until something is measured, like the position of an electron, it exists partially in each of the places it hace a chance to be at, and the true position isn't known until it's measured. Actually, there is no true position. The position is chosen at the moment of determination..

Yeah yeah, what's your point? I already know all about quantum mechanics, I don't need you to explain it to me.



quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

And I said what I did about your level of education because you seem to lack the most fundamental understanding of what makes up the various things in our universe..

WTF? Care to give an example? I don't remember ever discussing chemistry (if that's what you mean by the make up of various things in our universe). Give an example, otherwise I tend to think you're a stubborn person who is just arguing for the sake of argument. I believe we are mostly in agreement, but you seem to have something to prove.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

And no, I've never taken a college philosophy class, because philosophy is a bullshit discipline, and consists of nothing but conjecture. If you really try to work with the assumption that you know nothing absolutely, then nothing has any meaning anymore. None. So quit trying to come off as more erudite and sophistacated than the rest of us, because it just proves you havn't followed "philosophy" to it's foregone conclusion.

Yes, philosophy is bullshit. Everyone knows that. I'm not trying to "come off as more erudite and sophistacated", I don't know how you got that idea. I'm just posing questions because I'm interested in different viewpoints.



[This message has been edited by JMcSmoky (edited 03-24-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

I'm only trying to point out that being absolutely 100% atheist, without any doubt whatsoever, requires a leap of faith and is just as illogical as theism.

Certainly. I, and the vast majority of (self-professed) atheists would agree that to be completely sure that no gods exist is an irrational position to take.

(unless it can be proven that the idea of a god is a logically inconsistent; I have yet to see such a proof)

Let me try another example. Say a professional football team were to play a game against a middleschool team. I awknowledge that the middleschool team might win, but it'd be stupid to think they would. I would watch that game convinced that the professionals would win, and change my opinion only after I see the middleschoolers win, in which case I would be utterly flabbergasted. Lets say "I think there is no God", and leave it at that.

is the thought of a unicorn a real thought?

haha atheism...ignorance is bliss, but your just a blissful dumbass

The thought is real to the highest extent we can be sure of; but the inexistence of unicorns is also at the same level of assurance. There's always a chance that the myth is based on reality; but in this universe, everyone knows that no evidence shows unicorns to exist, therefor they don't.

Works the same way with God.