Zierro

:ohnoes: Yeah, exactly my point. I know 13 might seem young to a lot of you, but when I was in Middle School I still felt the same exact way about extremely liberal promiscuity: You don't know what you are doing, therefore you probably should not do it, and if you do, sorry but you are now stupid. It's almost as if some people are arguing she had no control over the situation.

If a 13 years old is so gullible the problem lies somewhere deep ... No. The only problem is that they are a child being manipulated by an adult. If there was a problem or fault on the child, there wouldnt be 11 felony charges slapped on a 54-year-old man. But the girl did bring it upon herself by giving personal details to a stranger on the internet, consenting to meet up, and taking her pants off. Yes, children can make mistakes. However, that doesn't make the old man any less guilty. What I don't understand is the sexual attraction between teenage girls and old men.

Yes, religious debates tend to get very political. Which is why I like to stay in the middle and point out the ridiculous arguments on both sides as an unbiased observer. And then I usually either get labeled a Godless heathen or a Flying Spaghetti Monster worshiper for questioning faulty logic and declaring the plain straight up reality of the situation: nobody knows. I guess agnostics just don't fit in. *by random chance 1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection 2. statistics a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling 3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly. Sure, but that's still random. If I flipped one million coins, one of them is almost surely bound to be heads. Even so, it still comes down solely to random chance. It's really just another word for "nature doing it", unless you're going to argue that nature is not random. PS: You still never answered about whether you fully reject the idea of Santa Claus or not. While it is true that we don't know what we'll discover until we discover it, Sees All has a strong point. We'd need to create a whole new universe from scratch in order to demonstrate how it came to be, and even if we were successful and able to replicate it, since we, intelligent beings, would be working from our already existing universe, we wouldn't know how a universe could exist without already having one first and without having intelligent beings on the team. It's really just a silly question.

Are you kidding? Us asking where we came from is such a silly question to begin with. We can't test or observe our origin was. The closest thing we could do would be to mimic creationism by creating life from non-life. As far as I can see, we haven't been able to pull off such a feat - we have only theorized about the possibility. Even if we could, the conditions would still be different, as humans would be on the project so there wouldn't be sufficient enough evidence showing that it can happen naturally without the aid of an intelligent being. God. But seriously, I see your point. It just "is" and there is no need to further question such a thing. And I also agree on this point - it is not necessary for there to be a god. However, that isn't proof that one does not exist. ? Then what would the third or fourth options be? I don't see how there could be more to it than A.) God exists and created life or B.) God doesn't exist and life occurred because random chance (nature) allowed it.

Perhaps because our existence is the most mysterious question of all, and no matter how it's going to be answered, it's going to sound ridiculous and inconceivable to us. But gravity can be explained in a much easier way than bringing up invisible men. We can attempt to use Occam's Razor. Is it more plausible that we exist through phenomenal random chance or is it more plausible that we exist through a phenomenal being's design? I think the idea of a first cause is mind-boggling to begin with, so I'd say both theories sound crazy, even though one of them is true. Is the ridiculous impossible?

Not at all. I think it's equally ridiculous to assert there is or isn't a god because we as humans simply do not have such knowledge. No, this explanation was only conceived in order to be a ridiculous theory. Again, appeal to ridicule. You don't fully reject the idea of a fat man in red flying around the world with reindeer and giving you presents?

Only an asteroid the size of Canada can destroy the world. But I digress. 'The end of the world' is a quick way of saying 'interrupting our stable, secure lifestyle and culture, into a chaotic, survival apocalyptic post-world' Get it now? Essentially, get ready to shoot some ghouls and scavenge the wasteland for iguana bits.

I don't know, but equating the plausibility of all gods to fairies is a much better analogy than equating them to The Santa Claus. As for the invisible flying snake revolving around my head, you conceived of that particular idea for the sole purpose of equating something I personally deem as absurd to something you personally deem as absurd (appeal to ridicule). God was conceived in an attempt to answer the philosophical question of our existence. Something's telling me that one theory's a bit more believable than the other... I'm still interested in seeing your response to this:

I always thought it was one of the more unnecessary holidays (grammer?). Now that I actually have a girlfriend, it feels even lamer.

Every parent can vouch for them being the ones who buy the presents and they can prove it with receipts. If someone else can vouch that they've created the universe and show us proof, well then the god theory has been debunked. I assert that Santa Claus does not exist - at least not the one we're talking about. As for you, you seem to be insinuating that you are open to the possibility of a man in red going through chimneys and giving presents to little boys and girls across the world in one night, since you said that you don't completely reject the possibility of a god and are equating the two. And you'd probably intentionally make them as absurd as you possibly could. I believe you're lumping together theism and Christianity. The only necessary characteristic of a "god" is that he created the universe. All the details like heaven and hell are derived from specific religions. There are plenty of theists who reject the concept of heaven and hell. But I do like the point you're getting at - the entity could exist, but the stories are wrong. There is no evidence against a man who might happen to be named Santa Claus, but there is evidence showing us that a fat man in red called Santa Claus who flies around earth with flying reindeer and a sleigh going through chimneys to drop off presents every Christmas is not real. Every gift given from "Santa" can be traced back to a family member, friend, or a someone that just felt like being charitable. There are receipts proving this.

Sensual passionate sex.

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence. Whoa there, I've never been arguing that it's more logical to assume a god does exist. Just that it's illogical to assume that he is merely a fairytale, on par with Santa or the Toothfairy. The most logical stance to take would be pure agnosticism (or ignorance) because there is no evidence for or against him. Santa, however, does have evidence against his existence. It could also be argued that there is evidence against Zeus or the Christian god, but those are specific gods and there is nothing to suggest that any god cannot exist. Let's say hypothetically that a god did exist. How would we ever find evidence of him? We can't observe him so we wouldn't be able to find the obligatory physical evidence anyway. This is when a logical problem arises. "Since we have not found any physical evidence of him, it is more logical to hold god to be untrue, even though he would be unobservable if he did exist."

Yes, but you entirely missed the point - I wasn't being literal. My point is about atheists acting religiously and making equally ridiculous assertions (such as "God = fictional character"), which reveals that their beliefs in practice are essentially "no god" "I believe there is no god" "god is not real" - the inverse of a religious person's. All while pretending that they are merely having an indifferent default stance on the matter - nothing more than "a lack of belief". I don't understand how a lack of belief plays such a large role in some folks' lives. I just wanted to point out the irony of the situation, coming from someone who actually is anti-religious and does not spout unfounded claims like "There is a god!" or "There isn't a god!". But hey looking at your definitions of "religion", I see that it actually does apply to many atheists: 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and to think otherwise isn't very scientifically minded. I would call it "religious thinking".

My definition of "belief" is exactly that: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. If you're not holding anything to be true nor untrue, that constitutes as neutrality or indifference - literally nothing more than a lack of belief. Atheism (without god) however, denotes that you hold it to be true that you live in a world without god. (Certainty is irrelevant. I am discussing the conscious psychological incentive behind ascribing a particular status to yourself - "holding something to be true", no matter the level of certainty.) My point all along is that the word atheist itself suggests that there is no god (or almost certainly is no god - you hold true that there is no god), and in practice, many atheists argue off the basis that there is no god. Not many atheists are oblivious or bold enough to actually assert that there is definitely no such thing as god, but it's apparent in the nature of the arguments and debates I've seen how much most of you disbelieve him. For example, you equated the plausibility of a god to a fictional character. Yet somehow atheism still isn't considered a religion... :-w

I understand that. As long as you lack the belief of something, you don't believe it. But (back to the consciousness aspect of making claims) my point is just that it would be more accurate and less misleading to say "I don't know" or "I am almost entirely certain it is not true" and be more specific about your actual belief, in order to not get it jumbled with the people who straight up reject an idea as false. It would be more accurate for them to make the claim "I don't believe you". Sure, saying, "I don't believe you are the world's strongest man," could also mean that you have no idea on a technical level, but what I want to know is what is it that would make you decide to say that rather than going straight to the chase and saying "I don't know". Doesn't "I don't know" work better? So essentially you believe there is no god? This ties back into the conscious incentive to make a claim thing. In practice, most atheists are a bit more than neutral on the matter.

If we're going by definitions, yes. Admitting ignorance when you do not know if something is or isn't is probably the best thing to do. When you think something to be true, you believe it. When you think something to be untrue, you don't believe it. When you think something to be bit over your head at the moment and you wish to reserve judgment until further evidence on either side is presented, you don't know. You haven't decided whether to believe it or not yet. Now can you answer my question: Why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does? Possibly - there very well could be a regular guy called Santa Claus. Your example was about The Santa though, and you were equating his plausibility to any god, which is basically claiming god is fictional. All while arguing about how atheism is the neutral stance. Well, that's what the sentence denotes, whether you want to be religious about it and deny the truth or not. This is why I love arguing with religious atheists - they take their beliefs to heart just as much as Christians. Hell, they'll even twist definitions and semantics around to give their BELIEFS more leverage. :D My point there had nothing to do with what one believes. Dizzle claimed that god does not exist until he is proven, which just isn't how things work in reality. Something can exist whether we perceive it or not.

I never suggested such a thing. I don't recall saying disbelieving god means you believe the devil. To say "I do not believe you" when someone says they are the strongest man is to say, "I do not believe you are the world's strongest man." He either is or isn't. Your stance can be that he is, he isn't, or that you don't know. I mean sure, saying you don't know also means you do not believe it semantically speaking, but why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does? It would just be more accurate and less misleading to say you don't know. The important thing to look at here is the conscious aspect. Your argument holds up for all of those who truly are indifferent - they lack the belief of god and there is nothing more to it (technically speaking, they "don't believe in god"). We're not talking about rocks or people who have never heard of god though. We're talking about self-ascribed atheists trying to pretend that they are neutral when the majority of their posts scream "no god, no god, no god" and when their label literally means "without god". That barely constitutes as neutral. You are dismissing a claim as untrue by consciously claiming you do not believe it - simply put, you believe it to be untrue. But he isn't. Santa Claus, as you and I know him, the one you were referencing, is known to wear a red suit and go into people's houses every year. If by Santa Claus, you meant any being in the universe that goes under that name, and not the jolly fat man in red we see on television all the time, you would be right - there is no evidence of that guy's nonexistence.

Not true. Pluto existed long before humans discovered it. When the lack of belief is nothing more than indifference, you're entirely correct. A rock is neither atheist nor theist. It is indifferent. But when someone makes the conscious claim that they do not believe what someone else said, that's a little more than indifference - and a little more than a lack of belief. It may be a lack of one belief, but it is replaced with another - the belief that what they said is untrue, and yes, even the possibility of their claim. Rejecting a claim does align you with the opposite. Now, "I don't know if fairies exist" would be the neutral, meaning you are not firmly convinced that fairies exist but are open to the possibility. If it isn't what you meant, I suggest finding the words that do accurately depict your thoughts. That's just how the dictionary rolls. Saying "I do not believe" simply just means you made the conscious choice to not believe something - rejection of the idea. Also, I think you already made it pretty clear in this thread that your stance is to point at all the signs of "not god". Main point: Atheists need to stop clogging up the neutral spot from those who actually are neutral on the matter. Sorry, I don't buy that. He was a fabrication and the evidence of this is all around you for this one. Of course the same could be argued for a specific god like Zeus or the Christian one, and I'd mostly be in agreement, but your Santa Claus analogy was brought up in reference to the idea of any god. There just isn't enough evidence of all gods' nonexistence. Can the concept of "up" exist without "down"?

What? "I do not believe you" literally means "I think what you said is untrue" not "Well maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong". "I don't know what to believe" would be a much more accurate way of expressing how you are neither rejecting nor accepting their claim. And "I'm extremely skeptical, but it is possible," would be the most fitting way of articulating your point to your classmate. But "I do not believe you" is an absolute by literal semantic definition and it doesn't paint the picture you intended. Indeed, but may I ask why you decided to choose Santa Claus, let's say... over aliens? It's probably because you're pretty certain yourself that Santa Claus doesn't exist - because all parents can vouch for Santa not being the one who puts the presents under the tree and how it's been historically documented that people have 'conjured' him (made him up on the spot for a purpose) in order to give Christmas a more cheerful atmosphere. Also, Santa Claus is described as visible (whereas in most religions, it is claimed that you cannot physically see god), he goes to all the good kids' houses every year, but has yet to ever be recorded. We also haven't found anything in the North Pole yet, which is much less to ask for than scoping out the entire universe and ethereal realm. I guess my point here is that there is much more evidence of Santa's nonexistence than there is for a god's.

Lol, I have to admit, I've never even heard of most of these terms. Should be interesting to read about something new for a change. :thumbup: *blows kisses to the crowd of 15-year-old skanks*

Are you suggesting that Santa Claus and a deity are equally plausible entities? That's what boggles me about Christianity's version of God - if he existed and were as reasonable as some claim, I don't think he'd really be bothered if people were skeptical about him or not - let alone get angry that some people wouldn't "worship" him. My response was just about creationism not necessarily implying imperfection.

I had pancakes today for the first time in months. Not bad, I just always preferred french toast.

As you can see in my graph, holding the handle and thrusting the tip of the bat swiftly into your opponent's cheek is the closest thing to a punch you can achieve with such an instrument.

Why does anything? More specifically, why does Rants exist? Of course it sounds like it would work in theory, but nearly every thread just boils down to a competition to see who is the most intellectually superior by using piss-poor arguments with either big words sprinkled on top of them or a smug sense of unfounded certainty derived from closed-mindedness (aka "commonsense"). I mean come on, almost every debate I've gotten into here was just another easy bullfight.

Sounds pretty likely. People take their freedom very seriously, and trying to ban a worldwide source of free information is the epitome of tyranny.