user1991

[/hide] Sounds like that museum took the worst parts of both sides...... On topic: There is no way to prove God exists, but there is also no way to prove he doesn't. Is a pretty solid deadlock and nobody will ever know the real answer until the day they die. You cannot prove God isn't real just by saying religion is stupid or by giving random what if scenarios.STRAWMAN. I'm aware God could exist. I don't refute that. What I refute is RELIGIOUS people using irrelevent, deistic arguments for "proof" of their Gods Just because you cannot prove something is real, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're right. But that really isn't a good argument. I can't prove there isn't a unicorn on the moon, but it doesn't mean there isn't - yet the concept is still ridiculous.Anybody who knows anything about modern science should know that. If your one of those people who is atheist just because they believe the Bible is just a bunch of stories, guess what, your right. They are stories, and most of them don't make much sense, but that is not the point. The whole point of those stories is the morals behind them. If you cannot see that then you are truly blind and cannot possibly have an opinion about this subject. No, YOU are truly blind. You cherry pick your morality. Need I point out all the stuff in the book of Leviticus? We have people in society who preach the Bible as a "rigid moral code", then when confronted about the evil sections of scripture they say "they are open for interpretation." What sort of rigid moral code is open for interpretation? You cannot have it both ways. If you don't realise that INTERPRETATION is simply you choosing what you want to believe, then it is YOU who has no place to be debating this. Most of the arguments here are "I'm right and you are wrong". One side puts faith in God. The other in science. This is another ridiculous argument put forward by the religious. My "faith" in science isn't the same as a religious person's faith in God. I have "faith" in science because as evidence shows, science progresses over time. 500 years ago we didn't have electricity. Science progresses, and this is a trend shown by the ever increasing complexity of modern medical treatments as well as general technology. This "faith" is based on evidence. Faith in God, is blind faith. You believe in God, regardless of anything else, and choose to believe in God no matter what. My beliefs are flexible. I can change them over time. Times change, which is one of the beautiful things about human civilisation - it progresses - yet the religious denounce logic and reason and simply refute everything and anything to do with them because they have immovable, blind faith in God. But if you look close enough, you will see that they are one in the same. Faith is faith no matter what it is you have faith in. No, it isn't. As said previously, you can have faith in something because it shows a common trend in its progression. You can also have faith in something for no other reason than to have faith in something. They are very different. You cannot say that one form of faith is absolutely irrational while yours is obviously correct. I can, and I just did, and it makes sense. Some say that they have faith in science because science looks at things, tests them, and proves that they are right or wrong. But does it? Countless things that were previously declared FACT are now considered preposterous. Which further proves my point. Science progresses, which is why I have "faith" in it. At the time, these ideas were the most sensible ideas, and even though we now see that they are ridiculous, they have played an important part in telling us how enzymes work, etc. It is only through the progression of an idea that it can become sound and solid. The scientific method works because it looks at present evidence, and then declares a conclusion, noone is saying that our ideas are 100% absolutely definitely correct, but they are atleast based upon evidence. Religious belief is based upon a number of things, evidence not being one of them. Things that we widely accept as fact today will probably be looked upon by our decedents as ridiculous. Maybe, but we have much more evidence than previous generation. They made predictions of smaller amounts of evidence - we have advanced in terms of technology to a point where we are capable of things that were not even thought of back then. Whilst some of our ideas will probably be proven wrong, we are atleast basing them off of evidence, instead of simply blindly guessing. Dealing an absoulte like saying that YOUR religion believes this and that so that is what you believe and nothing else, such as this quote from the previous page, is not an argument: I didn't say that in such general terms. For the specific example I gave, it was true. Obviously, if I say "your religion believes in God" - then this is obviously true, otherwise they wouldn't be a member of his religion. I said that as a Christian, he has absolute faith in God, which means that he believes that all the other Gods can't possibly be the "right" ones, unless they are of course exactly the same to his God (which they aren't) To whoever compared Allah to the Christian God, I'll point out one flaw - THE TRINITY. This is true arrogance. To believe that all people who believe in God are mindless slaves to their religion. This is not an argument because it can easily be turned around to day the exact thing about their point of view. "you are atheist so you obviously hate people who believe in God and you think only your ideas are correct".No. A God could exist. Hell, the Christian God could exist. Zeus could exist, so could Venus and Mars, and Yakub, and Jesus. I am NOT refuting that. What I am saying is that these religious beliefs are based on FAITH. A belief in something simply because you CAN believe in something does not make that belief correct. It doesn't make it wrong either, but religious belief is irrational. I don't think that my ideas are "correct" - I simply think that the atheist position is the most rational. Even if you make deistic arguments, it has no impact on theistic belief because it doesn't prove all the other stuff that comes along with the idea of a "God." Is that not exactly what is in the quote? It is. What is particularly ignorant about that quote is an obscured view on what God religions believe in. Almost every single monotheistic religion believes in the same God. No, they really don't. They share common traits, but to assert that they are the same God is just ridiculous. Ever heard of the Trinity? And it doesn't matter about their Gods, what is more important is their rules. You can see, simply by looking at their holy texts, that their Gods are not the same. If their Gods were the same, you would expect them to have the same will, would you not? Why is it that Muslims can't eat pork while Christians can? Or why is it that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. They obviously aren't the same. That is one of the points they actually agree on. Every single point in that quote is incorrect and I suggest that they do some research before picking apart something they do not understand. The bottom line of religion is that it gives people something to live by and something to live for. It is simply a guide on how to act as a person and gives hope for the future both in life and in death. Both science and religion believe in the same things, just a different wording. One believes in stone cold facts, the other in those same facts, just masked under extra layers of stressed moral values and hope. How are they incorrect. Let's go over them shall we. 1) That the Bible is the word of Godbecause the Bible says that it is the word of God Other than some really vague predictions that Christians say have come true, this is pretty much the only reason for the justification of believing the Bible to be the word of God. If you ask a Christian why it is the word of God, they will usually say "it is extremely wise" or "it has given me comfort" or "because it is." These aren't arguments, because they prove nothing.. 2) That any deed can be forgiven if you simply pray. To be forgiven, all you have to do is to forgive other peoples' sins. It says so in Matthew, and I can find the quote if you really want. 3) That every other religion that has ever existed is WRONG. Christians, when asked, will say that their religion is correct. To say that their religion is correct, that must mean the other religions are wrong. They can't both be right, unless there are multiple Gods, which in turn, would make all the religions wrong because they aren't polytheist. You don't hear Christians say that their religion is the "most plausible" or "most likely," - they say that it is correct (generally). 4) That you are the only true possessors of absolute truth. The only way you can get into heaven is to accept the Christian God - according to the Bible. As Christians, you are the only ones who accept the Christian God, and therefore you are the only ones who possess this "absolute truth". 5) That no matter what evidence is presented, your God has and always will be the "right God" Are you really going to try and argue that this isn't the case? This is the whole point of faith. You cannot believe in an eternal God and then refute the idea that he has always been the "right God." If you believe him to be the one true God, and also eternal, then you believe that he has, and always will be, the right God.[/

Atheism doesn't say that nothing in the world matters. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Stop strawmanning. Once you start accepting things without evidence then there are no boundaries to your perception of reality. You can literally assume anything you want. You believe what you want, regardless of reality. Hopefully, you can admit that that is irrational. That's all it takes.

Any debate that holds two opposing ideologies, with the acceptance of the other resulting in cognitive dissonance, is bound to cause a bit of argument.

How so, I debated in a normal fashion, I never said once religion is a stupid belief, my view is all beliefs are the same, unproven, therefore all beliefs are equal in how smart / dumb they sound. If you really would like to know I hold a very low opinion of myself, I've been diagnosed as depressed and how very low self-esteem / self-respect ;) So good generalization. Nothing can be proven, but beyond a certain point we assume something to be true. All beliefs aren't equal just because they can't be proven absolutely. If scientists did a ton of research and stated that "smoking is bad for your health" then I simply state, "no, smoking isn't bad for your health" - those two arguments do not hold equal weight.

Of course he doesn't. He doesnt realise that the amount of people who believe something doesn't mean anything when you're debating the validity of the belief. He could have said to me, "You must be so sure of yourself if you think that this ONE BELIEF is wrong." It's this type of ad populum argument that Christians use to make up for the fact that they have no real arguments.

You're a Christian, are you not?

wow you are really smart. Came up with that all by yourself did ya? Do even know what fundamentalist means? You must really think a lot of yourself to say that over 1 billion people on this planet are ridiculous. Where did you get your PhD in theology? Stanford or Harvard? My ad-hominem radar is off the chart! The people themselves aren't ridiculous, just their belief in religion. It doesn't make any sense. Why is the Bible the word of God exactly? Because the Bible says so! Great logic there. It doesn't take a PhD in theology to realise that one. :o :o You must really think a lot of yourself to say that every other religious belief that anyone has ever held, EVER, in the history of time, that is not Christian, is wrong. Where did you get your PhD in arrogance? *Insert Elitist University* or *Insert Elitist University*?

I'm not saying it has been proven wrong. But, the concept of faith demands that you believe even without evidence. So, theoretically, if in the future we develop time travel and we go back to the time of Jesus and see that none of it happened and it was all BS - you would still, if you're following the Bible anyway, believe in all of it. Trust me, if scientists proved the existence of God, I would change my beliefs. I would become a deist. However, I wouldn't choose a religion, because I'm aware of the fact that any set of beliefs I have chosen, I have chosen because I want to believe in them and because I agree with them. The existence of a God doesn't prove anything to do with the Trinity, Jesus, the Bible - and religions would sitll debate which religion was correct. We would not know anything of said God, so the entire concept would just be irrelevent.

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if... You can make a unicorn the centerpiece of an argument involving religion. You may be a fundamentalist Christian if.... You can make such a big deal about an argument involving a Unicorn and then fail to realise that your own religion is infact just as ridiculous as said unicorn argument.

Really? I didnt even know it was an argument. To the other guy - my beliefs are flexible, I can change them according to my perception of reality. I dont consider atheism infallible. I concede, that a God could exist. I just argue that there is nothing to suggest that he does, and even if you interpreted something to assume he did, it would not tell us anything about him and therefore the idea of God is redundant and it makes him irrelevent. Jackattack, you need to take a look at yourself. By admission of being religious and having faith, you choose to believe in something, that even if proven wrong, you would still consider to be of divine inspiration.

Well, you could prove it theoretically. But that's like saying you could prove that there is a unicorn on the moon. It isn't impossible. If there was one there, you could prove it was there. It is just so astronomically unlikely that we assume there isn't. I assume there isn't a unicorn on the moon for the same reason I assume Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Oh and also, a question that has just come to mind.. Why did Jesus even need to die for our sins? What would the act of dying do.. what purpose would it serve, why was it necessary? Any answers would be appreciated.

Because it does hurt other people. I have a problem with religion because of its influence on society. The religious majority would have no problem controlling my or any other atheist's life, because they want to subject their will onto the people, under the false pretence of it being the "will of God." They use the Bible, and cherry pick their morality to conform with what they want to believe, and then try and force this upon others. The very reason Christianity is so big is because it was forced upon people in the first place. You're trying to portray belief as some sort of irrelevent ideology that doesn't have implications on other peoples' lives, when it is infact the opposite of that. The sooner we can get rid of irrational faith the sooner we can truly work towards actual FREEDOM.

To be honest, it is more insulting when religious people try and pass legislature that would limit the freedoms of millions of "non believers", using the transparent cover of the "will of God" to enforce their own beliefs upon the general public. Your faith DOES have no foundation. What is the justification for it? Let me guess, faith itself?

Ugh. My "faith" in science isn't faith. I have "faith" in science because science looks at things, uses evidence, looks at them again, and then makes a conclusion based upon said evidence. It isn't faith. I have hope in science, but that's only because science is getting more and more complex and will have more and more profoundly impactful implications on both life and death. (and this isn't faith. Evidence shows that science progresses. Anyone can see this. The very fact that we are here debating this on the internet is proof of this) Your "faith", is what im criticising. My beliefs are flexible. I base them upon evidence. You however, choose not to. You choose to believe what you want, regardless of anything. It is your right to do so of course, I'm just telling you why you're stupid. You have the audacity to call me arrogant, yet you belong to a religion that believes; 1) That the Bible is the word of Godbecause the Bible says that it is the word of God. 2) That any deed can be forgiven if you simply pray. 3) That every other religion that has ever existed is WRONG. 4) That you are the only true possessors of absolute truth. 5) That no matter what evidence is presented, your God has and always will be the "right God"

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says that it is the word of God. I mean, those theists must be damn smart if they can manage to convince people that that makes sense. And to all you religious people, stop making DEISTIC arguments and using them as "evidence" for your THEISTIC beliefs. Seriously, it's stupid. For example, here is a common argument. "The universe is too beautiful for God to not exist." It's a ridiculous argument anyway, because "beauty" is a subjective concept, but still, you hear people use this one on TV and stuff. It doesn't prove anything. By using this as justification for being a theist you're going from A to C and skipping out the B. Inherent beauty, even if you assume it to be of Divine creation, does not prove anything about a certain religion. It is as much proof for Christianity as it is for Islam, or Hinduism. So let's theorise. Say, for example, scientists prove that a God exists, the situation would be pretty much the same as it is now. Religions would argue over which one is correct, atheists would just become deists. We wouldn't know anything about said God, whether we needed to worship him or not, etc etc, so it would pretty much make the entire thing redundant, and God would be irrelevent. I'm sick and tired of theists using deistic arguments for proof of God. The arguments are stupid in the first place, and when you consider that they mean absolutely nothing when we're debating RELIGION, it makes me angry that people can actually be so blind and absorbed into their own mindset that they don't have the capacity to see that what they're saying is irrelevent to the argument within which they're debating. Look, there are a couple good arguments for the existence of a God, a vague, mysterious God, and these arguments are pretty much entirely based off of unproveable questions. "Where did we come from?" etc etc. They aren't proof at all really, they're just areas in which science hasn't been able to fully explain. Somehow, people assume this to believe that a God exists, and even worse, they assume it to mean that THEIR God is the true God. Faith, on such a large scale, is stupid. I don't care if it gives you comfort, really - your comfort isn't more important than the UNHINDERED PROGRESSION of the human race, working collectively towards WORLD PEACE. Ironically, the religious seem to be the ones who are working against this, mostly unknowingly. The acceptance of the idea of "blind faith", is in my opinion, one of the most damagings things in terms of the progression of our civilisation. Why? Because it makes no sense.

Don't you have to be 13 to play RS in the first place? I think tip.it should go fully XxX, that'd be hilarious. But then again, you mods make me laugh. Like that time I said to Tripsis something about having an "open mind" and she replied with "I don't have to have an open mind I'm admin" - when on her devart page she describes her main dislike as "authority." I thought that was kinda ironic. But yeh, I mean I kinda agree, it'd be nice to have those posts back, but whatever.

Wow... nicely done man. Props for getting it done, not many people actually go through with it all the way. Just make sure you don't relapse. That'd suck major balls.

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do". Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are. What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin? Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity. Yeh, but Christians don't really listen to Jesus that much when you REALLY think about it. And they always try and shpeel off things that he says that they happen to not agree with. Well, they do listen to Jesus, but they also listen to the rest of the Bible. And other parts of the Bible contradict Jesus. But of course, these are only "metaphorical". :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Interpretation stems from your beliefs. Your beliefs are caused by your your experiences and life which are manifested into your subconscious. Your subconscious, is different to everyone elses. Therefore, if the Bible is open to interpretation, there must be contradictions in it. If you read a book with contradictions in it and choose to believe only some sections, all you are doing is choosing things which you already agree with in the first place. Morality isn't objective, and therefore, "right" and "wrong" don't exist. There is only what you believe. And if you use the Bible to "believe", then as said before, you're just using it to backup something you already know. Love thy neighbor vs. Kill all homosexuals You decide Christians. But, after you make your decision, please don't try and bs us into thinking that the Bible is all perfect and provides you with proof of God's existence, when all you've done is looked at something, checked it out with your subconscious, and made a decision based on what you already think.

At the subway here, the guy is such a douche bag about refills. Before he worked there, we used to go down sometimes on a friday and catch a movie, so we bought a stack of 200 subway cups on ebay for like $17, so we could always get free drinks, and the employees never had a problem about it. Then, a few weeks ago, I finish eatin the sub, I walk JUST outside the door, decide to get a refill, go back in, and he says "you can't refill if you've left the premises." I was like WOW, epitome of douche. Why would he even care? So now, everytime I go I get jalapenos simply because they're the most expensive item that subway purchases. And I don't even like them.

You're right. The vast majority of obese people are obese because they just don't exercise enough. Sure, some people have thyroid conditions or whatever, but their numbers compared to the total are hardly anything. It isn't discrimination. I don't have a problem with obese people, even if it's due to lack of effort. Hell, they can live their lives how they like, it's their choice. BUT, I take issue when it affects others. So if someone sits in a seat and their fat spills over and causes discomfort to people sitting next to them, yes, either the other people should get upgraded or the obese person should have to buy two seats.

Steps to make a theory: Hypothesis-->Experiment-->Repeat Experiment-->Submit for Peer review--> Editor writes back-->Revise-->Retest-->Resubmit for publishing (if it gets published, that is)-->If published scientists attack like vultures to disprove because science is essentially the art of disproving-->Scientists may accept it into the community--> THEORY! What do the other scientists think? People outside the scientific realm blur the lines of context between a scientific theory and the everyday use of the word "theory". That's exactly my point. Just because someone uses the word "theory", doesn't make it a valid theory. Creationists like to act like Evolution is equal to their ideas simply because "Theory of Evolution" has the word "Theory". They fail to realise that it actually means something completely different. Christians out there, what makes the Bible the Word of God?

You know the most damaging thing about Christianity? The word "God" has two different meanings. Christian God, and general God. Because of this, Christians can easily tie in arguments for the existence of a general God, to their Christian God, as if they're the same thing. We created morality, we decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. Popular opinion dictates that certain things are right/wrong, that's all there is to it. Christians argue for objective morality, the idea that somehow there are moral truths, inherent universally. Well, they must be arguing that, that is if they believe the Bible. If they don't believe that, then they're full of it. How can you possibly "interpret" the Bible as the Word of God if all your interpretations stem from your subconscious, which stems from experience and life, which means that you interpret it differently to everyone else who has ever lived. The only way you could argue that the Bible can be used as any justification for anything, is if you say that there are rights and wrongs, period. But obviously, you're not saying that, simply due to the amount of disagreement on the subject of homosexuality. Either all the Bible should be used, or none of it. You can't argue for subjective morality and STILL take the Bible to hold any sort of meaning, that is, if you ARENT an idiot. And no, you can't just use the "good" bits, because the whole concept of "good" is made up. Get that idea into your heads. If you interpret it, EVEN FOR PERSONAL PRAYER, you're deluding yourself. Do you understand how the process of interpreting it works? If you don't realise that everything you've known/done/experienced influences what you think, then you ARE an idiot. And if you do understand this, and still talk about "interpreting the Bible's wisdom" without realising that all you've done is simply chosen something that you wanted to, hence the CHOICE aspect, then you're also an idiot. Either all of it, or none of it. If it is the "Word of God," then take it all on board. And don't say "many men have changed it over time," because that's entirely irrelevent. If that's the case, it works both ways. How do you know that it was changed for the worse? Is it not possible that the Bible was even more barbaric, and the stories of "goodness" were added by men? For all you know, your God could be one mean SOB. But, of course, he isn't, because "he's good." And so is everything you think, because, how possibly can you be wrong. Hell, you're so right, that you can INTERPRET a book proclaimed as the "Word of God", openly use certain passages and discard other ones that you do not agree with, try and use it for justification when making laws/systems of education, and actually have the arrogance to ignore all of this, apparently in the effort to find "absolute truth." Yeh, sure.

You can't just call something a theory then act like it holds equal weight to every other theory simply because it is one. My new theory: Obama is an alien. Wow, a theory. Now that I have labelled it a theory, I can act as if it suddenly makes sense/means anything. Yeh, because technically it is my theory, it actually holds equal weight with every other theory about Obama out there, simply cause the word "theory" is mentioned. I'm a genius. I've been thinking about this topic, and I think the OP Should clarify what the Professor actually said. If someone believes in a God, but not a religion, I would say they are significantly smarter than someone who believes in a religion (generally, so shut it with your Newton stories.) Deism is still simply an assumption. Just because God COULD exist, doesn't mean he does. If I told you I could fly, you would wan't to see me do it before you believed me. But suddenly, with the idea of a God, just because it's possible, it must mean that he is. Yeh, great logic there. Religions, are even worse, ESPECIALLY when people tie in the ideas of Deism with it. Because of religion's influence in society, and the unfortunate coincidence that the word "God" has two different meanings (the Christian God, or a general supreme being), people make these arguments for an existence of a God, then simply revert to their original religious beliefs, as if they're the default. It's like when Christians use the cosmological argument. They say, well, everything must have had a cause, therefore I believe in God. BUT, the problem is, you don't. You believe in the CHRISTIAN God, which isn't the same thing. You don't just acknowledge that maybe, there could be A God, a supreme being of some kind, but no, because you assume existence has to have a cause, you assume that your CHRISTIAN God must be the cause, as if that's some kind of valid proof. Even if you could prove definitively that there was A GOD, some sort of higher power that created everything, there would still be arguments between religions. Atheists would live exactly the same, but simply say, okay, well there is a God. Even if there is, it doesn't prove there is an afterlife, or that Jesus Christ died for our sins, or that we actually have to worship it. That's another point, if a God did exist, why would you possibly need to praise it/pray to it. If it could grant you wishes, then why couldn't it end poverty. Unless, you want to get into one of these bs arguments like, well God hasn't granted you anything, it was in his plan, and that's how it always was. One question, why is God such a douche?

"Marijuana is bad" Sorry, just had to mention it. Oh and the guy with the God comment makes a legitimate point. See if for example I told people I could fly, not with any sort of device, but actually fly of my own volition - theoretically it's possible. I mean, I could have been abducted by aliens and they could have bathed me in some sort of flying-liquid that magically allows me to distort space-time itself and fly. Some bs like that. Tremendously unlikely, but can you say for certain that it hasn't happened? The point I'm trying to make here is that usually, in society, people don't just go on "faith". If, as said earlier, I told you I could fly, you would not believe me until I showed you. For some weird reason, this concept is reversed for religion, and religion alone. Suddenly blind faith is acceptable, and the only evidence given for it is evidence that can only be considered evidence if you are a "believer" in the first place. Sort of like saying the Bible is the word of God, because it is the word of God. The guy with the "not the place" comment also makes a legitimate point, and therefore, in the interest of not starting an argument, I'll call it quits on the religion issue.