Assume Nothing

I'm honestly surprised that no one has suggested hookers and blow, even sarcastically. Does that not even register as an option?

I've written a response before reading the edit, so I'll post that first. It's not a belief, but you do act as though it was true in everyday life, because you don't do anything to . That's what's important: the question is relevant on more than just on a philosophical level. I think you’ve left your sentence incomplete. ‘because you don’t do anything to […]’ I’ll refrain from commenting until you clarify. Gods transcend reason by definition and as such are beyond your arguments. The "create a rock so large he can't push it" argument is invalid because it's possible for God to do both; we just don't understand how. Besides, scripture was written by men and Christianity was propagated by them: our version of Christianity is corrupt. Gods transcend reason? It sounds as much as a non-answer as ‘God works in mysterious ways’, if I’m interpreting you correctly. Everything we know of has been explainable – scientifically, mathematically, or philosophically. Please clarify: is it another way of saying ‘beyond reason’? I have no idea where you’re getting the ideas of ‘corrupt Christianity’ - how exactly do you know? I’d place a [citation needed] tag, but I don’t really want to engage in informal debate. You have to act in some way or another, despite having no justifications. In this sense, you are not any more justified than a theist is. I don’t think it requires justification for a neutral/default position – in fact – as part of the justification; it is the lack of justification of the opposition. (Don’t get philosophical here, it’ll only serve to distract us from the crux of the argument.) Truth is impossible to know for such things, and yet we have to act according to one of the positions in the debatewhich is why picking and choosing is justified. Oh, I think I understand you a little better now. If you mean justified in the context of ‘having a good reason to act in such way’, but if you mean ‘having good reason to believe’ – I’d argue otherwise. I am speaking of faith in values--progress is probably yours. There is no justification for belief in progress. I’m not entirely sure what that means – faith in values. How exactly are you defining faith? If you won’t clarify, I’ll presume the Webster definition of ‘acceptance of a claim as true without sufficient evidence’ – which doesn’t seem to fit the context (thus I ask for clarification). You wrote they were more serious about their beliefs. I’ll clarify: by serious, I mean with greater concern for its truth values. You’ve illustrated a position with little/no concern for truth values – which makes this argument a little moot, but it’s a fun discussion nonetheless. [hide] I'll have to come back to this, it's more than what I could handle at 1:43am. We'll refer to this later.[/hide] EDIT - question of curiosity: does positive affirmation of the existence of God enhance life, or degrade it?

*grumbles about possessive apostrophe being misused* I find they're really good for hiking/camping expeditions, especially if it's during cold weather conditions.

It's a philosophical issue, but I think the idea of this thread is more concerned about whether it is true on the basis of argument/evidence. You're making too many philosophical references without explanation - since I don't study it, I wouldn't really understand and thus it remains wholly unpersuasive. Why is it more relevant to be concerned about what promotes life? What is 'life'? It doesn't sound like you're speaking in its traditional context. How does Christianity not promote it? What do you mean when you say 'unknowable'? Is anything 'knowable' - and if so, how does it reach that stage? What is external values, and how does man realise that it is all inventions? What makes beliefs no more justified than others, if we could approximately agree on the values of certain values (e.g. social prosperity, standards of living, health/wellbeing, pleasure/happiness, liberty etc.)?

Of course atheists can't prove their disbelief - it's not even a belief in the first place. In fact, no negative position could be disproven if we're questioning the very foundations of our beliefs - i.e. physical laws of the universe and their origins. I don't entirely follow how it's underpinned by nothing better than a theist's, given that it's not a belief in the first place. I submit that it's difficult to make an argument against all gods, but I can quite easily argue against the concept of the Christian god given the blatant contradictions in its very own scripture. I don't know what a moderate religious God entails (as others have failed/refused to clarify), so I'll operate on the biblical depiction. Uh, I can't say I disagree that unknowable doesn't mean irrelevant - but what are you trying to get at? It's one of the things I hold contention with - picking and choosing religions doesn't make the belief in the deity validated. I read on. It depends how you're defining faith. You claim that I 'must have some irrational faith in something' to justify my 'contempt of religion' - what exactly are you designating to be faith? If we operate on the webster's definition of 'belief without evidence', then I'd argue that this assertion is untrue. I can't see where I've praised the thoughtfulness of atheists, if that's what you're trying to suggest. I see no relevance on the Kierkegaard comment so I'll disregard that.

I've tried my first military MRE. It's... interesting

[hide] [/hide] I'll operate on a definition consistently: not to reject theism as such, but to exercise skepticism on the claim thus non-acceptance of the claim by default. It's written hastily, so if need be I could further clarify in future posts. Even if it's unknowable, it doesn't mean we shouldn't speculate - especially when it pertains to our daily lives and how we're meant to live (see ethics & morality). I request for justification on a positive claim that a deity does exist, because the claim 'I don't believe you' doesn't really have much to say in terms of worldviews. I think you might be misreading me, but a quote would help to clear up ambiguity here. I've always edged closer to atheism than theism though - theistic beliefs leave too many holes in even the basic, verifiable events/things. But then again, I'd be faced with the criticism that it only applies to fundamentalists, even though that's untrue. EDIT - I'll wait for your edit. EDIT 2 - it looks like you've disappeared before completing your post. Is there any point of progressing from this discussion if you've left?

Banned for failing to understand basic ingame terminology. A 'monster hunter' would be one that actively engages in PvE combat - i.e. bosshunting.

[hide] This is categorically false. As someone who switched his username from "Skeptic" to "Assume Nothing", you would be expected to know that nothing can be proven objectively, that nothing within our subjectivity can be proven if it can't be perceived (as is the case with theological questions), and that therefore, in order to believe there is no God, one has to be relatively indulgent towards beliefs. Both atheism and theism are dogmatic positions: atheism can never be proven, and theism will only ever been proven if God indubitably presents himself to us. And since you have to act as though one or the other were true, it is equally valid to act as though God existed than it is not to. You do at least vaguely sense that a skeptic who debates metaphysical issues is not following the rigorous logic which brought him to skepticism, right? Modern philosophers have been convinced for centuries that this question is a waste of time; the writing that remains discusses the problems raised by the absence of proof. [/hide] If you're miscategorizing what atheistic viewpoints entails, you'd be right. We don't assert that there is no God with any certainty, we simply don't believe that there is a god of any description. If you're going to argue that atheism is dogmatic, you'd have to prove or otherwise illustrate how atheists follow the same set of principles. Atheism doesn't hold the burden of proof, it's a default state of skepticism. You do mention the problem of proof in terms of theistic beliefs - that this 'god' character must present themselves to humanity before it could be plausibly taken into account as a true event, but that's at the fault of the Christian. It's the way that 'God' has been defined over the years that has made this an impossible task by humanity. I don't follow on anything you've said after 'And since you acted' - care to explain in layman's terms so it could be easily deciphered? EDIT - according to webster's dictionary, dogma is defined to be doctrines laid upon by an authority. It'll be misuse of terminology if that's what you're calling atheism.

Most people who claim to be Christian also aren't practicing that faith. It's like you said about laziness, people will claim it out of habit because they were born into it. That's actually a pretty good point - a lot of those who claim to be of the Christian faith don't really believe everything that the religion entails. It raises the question - what defines Christianity? It's pretty clear that the acceptance of 'Jesus' is insufficient here. When others speak on general basis here, they are called wrong because they cannot present evidence for the clear contradictions in their opinions. That's the problem I had, and I had to accept it. I think it's only fair to hold everyone else to the same standard, to get anywhere productive here... So you submit that it's a fruitless exercise as there's no public data on this. We're all operating on personal experience - and it's difficult to prove who's right. Fair point, but I'm equipped with an explanation of my theory as opposed to no explanation by my detractors. [citation needed] I recently moved to the "bible belt" area in Western PA to be closer to my extended family. I wouldn't say that there's pressure to go to church at all. The only way that I could say I relate to pressure, is that most people here just go to church, and lots of the community social events are held at our local churches. That's really all there is in ways of 'pressure', and it's seriously overstated by others. I think there's a little difference between pressure on theists to attend church, to pressure on atheists to convert and start attending.

It's called an exception to the rule - I'm speaking on a general basis here. I'm not saying there isn't ignorant atheists - they are probably worse than some ignorant theists out there. On the whole, I'm not wrong. EDIT - it depends where you're at actually. If you're closer to the Bible belt, there is. If you're farther from it, it's more lax.

It's because atheists actually take beliefs seriously, so in order to argue effectively - they learn about Christianity. It's probably important to note that a lot of atheists were former Christians who just found no answers in their previous belief system. It's difficult to get any first hand experience on some of the concepts personally because I've never been fully involved in Christian teachings in the first place - the social pressure to attend church is much less here in the UK.

Banned for not being perfect.

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist. Why? And what do you deem public? I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society) EDIT: A definition of the word belief isn't the same as the concept of it. It is a hard concept to grasp I understand, and I'm finding no other way to express to you what it is. Explain to me what a favourite colour is. What is the basis for this and what it entails. The answer to that is a tiny fraction of the size of belief. It's not inexpressible as you claim it is, it is only yourself who has failed to explain it. I'll reiterate: it is not my failure to comprehend or interpret, rather - it is your failure to coherently explain in sufficient detail. It would be an exercise of futility to explain what a favourite colour is - it's of no relevance to this discussion at all. The concept of belief can be expressed, but I won't bore you if you won't care for the response. I'll await your request for elaboration, if you even want it.

I said scrutiny, not enforcement. You're allowed to ignore any and all evidence and arguments presented by the opposition and hold fast to your personal beliefs. That is your choice. It's either straw-manning or conflation - but either way, it's fallacious logic. If he does choose to ignore any and all evidence/arguments presented by the opposition without presenting any argument of his own, then his belief can be rightly claimed as unfounded.

Public spaces would be anywhere communal - i.e. non-private property where you'd have to share space with others. I see no relevance on why you'd bring up laws - who said anything about enforcing beliefs onto others - whatever that entails?

The onus is on you to present the viewpoint coherently. It is not my failure to interpret - rather, your failure to explain, but I digress. I don't see how you're finding it so difficult to explain the concept of belief when it exists in the webster's dictionary. be·lief/biˈlēf/ Noun: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Synonyms: faith - trust - confidence - persuasion - credence

You're asserting an impossible proposition. It's only two options - acceptance, or non-acceptance of a claim, i.e. belief/unbelief. If you're undecided, you're still within the dichotomy but you've just chosen to have the extra leniency of being able to change your mind later. The reasoning that it's human nature is insufficient. Nor do we expect humanity to have collective knowledge of the universe/cosmos. I fail to see the relevance though. You're essentially saying that you're unconcerned for whether you believe your beliefs are true/false with the 'live and let live' statement. It still fails to address the core question - is there a God?

Only you, responses from you are pointless, yet you do so anyway. Belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be described in a simple forum post. It isn't something which can be laid out, as every one of the 7 billion people on the planet will believe different things. That is what you are not understanding. Yes there are themes through some of them, but on the whole you would be hard pressed to find a group which have the same opinions and beliefs on every subject the same. Belief comes in as many shapes and sizes as human personalities. Science knows very little about how the human brain truly works, which means there is no scientific reason as to why humans believe certain things, they just do. You may as well be arguing over which colour is the best. It's very hard for one to take an objective look at themselves, especially in consideration of the 'enemy'. That is why many atheists tend to not see that they are being the same as those they seem to oppose. I on the other hand, am in neither camp, and can see a clearer image of both sides and the annoying as [bleep] bickering that ensues every time this thread pops up. Oh, so it seems to be a personal attack on my character then? Or am I misunderstanding you? I never assert, claim, or suggest that belief can be quantified - just explained in layman's terms. If that's too much of a job for you, I don't know what your role is here. Your monologue about beliefs tell us nothing of their nature - e.g. what it's founded upon, whether it matters, etc. The analogy is flawed at best, but that's trivial - reading on. I'm not sure what your other paragraph of sweeping generalizations are really for - explain how its relevant in any way, shape, or form? 'I can see a clearer image of both sides' - of what? It's far too ambiguous to be of any meaningful context, and it's irrelevant at best. Please, if you're going to engage in this discussion, tell us why you think there is/isn't a God.

>I don't care Okay, so we've established that responding to you is pointless - but there's still disagreement so I'll still post a response nonetheless. If my definitions of belief doesn't suit you, then you must present to me what you think belief entails - it's not my responsibility to speculate on that. I don't think you understand what belief truly entails either. Why do you think you know more about atheists than an atheist? On a semi-related note: You're telling me that atheists in general are militant, arrogant, etc. - yet unsurprisingly, that's exactly how you're portraying yourself. Could it be irony? The difference between you and I would be the concern for truth. I care about whether my beliefs are true, but you don't seem to be. What is the point of your involvement in this discussion?

Key difference: they are not influenced by their unbelief. I think you're conflating anti-theism with atheism here. You're also making a lot of generalizations about atheists. How can you claim that atheists are even more pushy/intolerent/bigoted, when you're taking non-representative examples? The vocal parties are almost inherently worse than the less vocal ones. Oh, and if you're going to assert that atheists take misunderstandings of religion, then you must show what these misunderstandings are. It's written in scripture, which actually makes it very convenient for us to scrutinize religion. It's funny that you defend theism simply because you think atheists are as you so claim 'arses' [sic]. It speaks volumes for how much you're concerned about whether these claims are of any truth. Whilst there are freedom of religion, there should also be freedom from religion. Why must any belief/disbelief be imposed on others in a public setting? It's even written in the scripture (not sure on which chapter but I can check) that one should 'pray at home, not in public'.

... there needs to be more options in the poll. 'I believe in a loving creator God' 'I believe in a malevolent monster deity' 'I believe in an apathetic God' 'I believe God is nature/oneself/etc.'

If only there was a way to introduce her to a particular forum.

@Skull I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: religious discussions and debates are important because religions actively involve themselves in many social things, regardless of whether others want it or not. I’ll illustrate: it’s in our educational systems (intelligent design/creationism endorsed in classrooms, or at least some opposition against evolution), it’s in our jurisdictions (laws regarding adultery, prostitution, abortion, etc. – some are justified though), it’s in congress (let’s just say some of the actions, or inaction are religiously inspired), it’s in an individual’s social networks (other family members, friends, etc.) – it has the ability to exert a lot of social pressure for political/religious purposes. If we don’t make a stance and simply ‘accept’ religion – including fundamentalism, it becomes very problematic. On a more relevant note, I’d say you’re probably an agnostic atheist but you might have some misconceptions about atheism – or maybe you’re an apatheist. If you’re an apatheist, then good for you – but I’m concerned about whether my beliefs are true. I would not accept a proposition unless I’m given credible evidence, or strong argument. I can’t think of a single argument in favour of the existence of deities that would not be debunked with relative ease (I’d say that personal revelation is too subjective, claims which leave room for ambiguity should be critically examined and viciously scrutinized, and flawed argumentation is just silly for obvious reasons). @Kimberly I struggle to accept the concepts of the Christian ‘god’ because if it’s true that the ‘god’ exists, it must be either unwilling to help, unable to help, or willing and able to help but chooses not to – in other words, the problem of evil. I’ll note that you make reference to free-will, but I won’t bore you with criticisms of the free-will defense unless you’d ask for elaboration. … this is a little off-topic, but I’ll clarify on why I ask things like ‘why doesn’t God heal amputees?’ – it’s a simple question that removes ambiguity. In cases like healing cancer with prayer and medicine, there’s ambiguity as to whether it was coincidental or whether it was the active intervention by a sentient ‘higher power’. If we remove the ambiguity, such as in the example of amputees, we can reasonably assert that God does not heal them. In effect, it’s evidence of the failure of prayer. … to drift even further off-topic, I don’t understand why it’s easier to believe in a God when there’s so many problems with the concept – even at its most basic levels, like the concept of omnipotence. But then again, reality is literally incredible – i.e. to be so remarkable as to inspire disbelief.