Is God real post your thoughts!

[tryto]

It can, but we do not know if it exists or if it does not.

 

 

 

? Your article says that either the universe is infinite right now or is expanding infinitely. Are you trying to discredit the article that you yourself posted?

 

 

 

You misunderstand the article. The universe, if it is not infinite, would require infinite time to become infinite in size. That would require that infinite time could exist in the first place, so circular reasoning must occur for this to work. In fact, anything, given infinite time, would gain infinite properties. That doesn't prove that infinities exist.

 

 

 

Did I say it would disprove god? No; it serves as an example of the faultiness of the "if you cannot disprove god, he must exist" argument, among a few other fallacies.

 

 

 

Nobody said that either. What was said was, "You can neither prove nor disprove god, therefore atheists are using faith in their beliefs too." By definition, faith is a belief that is not based on proof. If you have no proof that god does not exist but you still believe that, then you have faith that he doesn't exist.

 

 

 

A typical misunderstanding of the etymology and definition of atheism. Atheism means, literally, without theism. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. It does not involve certitude; even a complete agnostic is not a believer, and thus not a theist, and so they are an atheist. If you prefer, you can append agnostic to atheist, making agnostic atheist. This works because they refer to two different things; atheism to belief and agnosticism to certitude and knowledge. The opposite of agnostic is gnostic, having absolute knowledge.

 

 

 

The FSM isn't contingent or physical. That's why it's immaterial and cannot be detected. Are you saying that the FSM or god could not create spaghetti before humans were created?

 

 

 

Are you really arguing that mankind didn't invent spaghetti...? http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art73.htm And the FSM not being physical kind of defeats the purpose of him having the ability to fly and being made out of spaghetti. Maybe next time people will come up with names that don't contradict the point they're trying to make.

 

 

 

Again. You have completely ignored my points and are strawmanning them. The FSM is wholly seperate from the concept of spaghetti; just because man created spaghetti does not mean that they created whatever type of metaphysical spaghetti the FSM could be made out of. Are you saying that if I changed the name of the FSM to the flying gurkendagglepfizer monster, it would be different?

 

 

 

String theory says that there exist strings in nature. Are these strings, should they exist(let's assume they do) made by man? no, they are not.

 

 

 

Those strings aren't just something made up for the purpose of crediting a rhetorical argument, unlike your invisible spaghetti strands that exist in outer space.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. The purpose of claims does not hold any relevance on their being true or not,and could be construed to be a ad hominem argument against the originator.

 

 

 

God isn't a psychological comfort; I think it's a psychological harm.

 

 

 

Ooo, you're such a bad boy. :)

 

 

 

OT: Gandhi > Jesus.

 

 

 

Their teachings are both good, but when it comes to what they've physically done I think Jesus wins.

 

 

 

Gandhi was a pacifist and didn't rely on physical threats to persuade people to obey his teachings.

 

If you don't believe that Jesus was god and died for our sins, then he didn't really do anything, while Gandi did much for his people.

[Zierro]

You misunderstand the article. The universe, if it is not infinite, would require infinite time to become infinite in size. That would require that infinite time could exist in the first place, so circular reasoning must occur for this to work. In fact, anything, given infinite time, would gain infinite properties. That doesn't prove that infinities exist.

 

 

 

Because I don't choose to cherrypick at the article like what you've done, that means I don't understand it? I'll quote it again:

 

 

 

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

 

 

 

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.

 

 

 

They did not say "in an infinite future" they said "in the infinite future" meaning they believe in one and they don't consider it hypothetical.

 

 

 

A typical misunderstanding of the etymology and definition of atheism. Atheism means, literally, without theism. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. It does not involve certitude; even a complete agnostic is not a believer, and thus not a theist, and so they are an atheist. If you prefer, you can append agnostic to atheist, making agnostic atheist. This works because they refer to two different things; atheism to belief and agnosticism to certitude and knowledge. The opposite of agnostic is gnostic, having absolute knowledge.

 

 

 

Belief that god does not exist is still a belief no matter how you want to slice the cake. God cannot be disproved, therefore there is no evidence for that belief - it is a belief based on faith. I have a good feeling you set me up to go in circles on purpose... Go ahead, reiterate yourself, but I'm warning you I'll do the same.

 

 

 

Again. You have completely ignored my points and are strawmanning them. The FSM is wholly seperate from the concept of spaghetti; just because man created spaghetti does not mean that they created whatever type of metaphysical spaghetti the FSM could be made out of. Are you saying that if I changed the name of the FSM to the flying gurkendagglepfizer monster, it would be different?

 

 

 

Again, you didn't answer the question. Since I'm a nice guy I'll answer yours though - yes, it would make it different.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. The purpose of claims does not hold any relevance on their being true or not,and could be construed to be a ad hominem argument against the originator.

 

 

 

The only irrelevancy I see here is your bringing up string theory in the first place. Here, let's get back on track. I'm curious to see your response to this paragraph which you must have overlooked:

 

 

 

"Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk. Why? Because neither have proof, therefore should be treated the same." Sorry, but that attitude irritates me."

 

 

 

Gandhi was a pacifist and didn't rely on physical threats to persuade people to obey his teachings.

 

If you don't believe that Jesus was god and died for our sins, then he didn't really do anything, while Gandi did much for his people.

 

 

 

Jesus didn't do anything? He didn't cause a religion to be created in which charities and the likes sprouted out from, making millions and millions of people's lives more hopeful, peaceful, and loving?

 

 

 

If you are honestly going to sit here and deny all the good things that Christianity has done then what is the point in arguing?

[Shinjula]

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

The length of a coastline

 

 

 

What? I can easily measure the length of a single coastline to be x length.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _coastline

 

 

 

For example, the length of Canada's coastline is around 200,000km.

 

Sorry that wasn't actually as stupid as it might sound at first glance, you say that canadas coatline is around 200,000km but thats only an approximation, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT sorry didnt see it had been posted earlier

 

 

 

The smallest unit of measurement though is not the atom, theres finer substructure to levels beyond which the uncertainty priciple applies, I'd also be willing to debate that maths wasnt at all a creation of man, and that it exists independant to him, but it think thats beyond the bounds of this thread

 

 

 

On the other hand its a good example of an infinite object in real space. it can be debated its not entirely accurate but it cant be just dismissed, if you are refuting it is real that is simply a belief

[tryto]

You misunderstand the article. The universe, if it is not infinite, would require infinite time to become infinite in size. That would require that infinite time could exist in the first place, so circular reasoning must occur for this to work. In fact, anything, given infinite time, would gain infinite properties. That doesn't prove that infinities exist.

 

 

 

Because I don't choose to cherrypick at the article like what you've done, that means I don't understand it? I'll quote it again:

 

 

 

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

 

 

 

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.

 

 

 

They did not say "in an infinite future" they said "in the infinite future" meaning they believe in one and they don't consider it hypothetical.

 

 

 

Then in that case you have your infinite. It's an unproven assumption. Maybe he's right(I think so) or maybe he's not. I just choose to remain skeptical, and in any case, once you admit infinite time, then we don't have to have this argument any more, because we have an infinite. I don't deny that I think infinites exist; but we can't prove it.

 

 

 

A typical misunderstanding of the etymology and definition of atheism. Atheism means, literally, without theism. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. It does not involve certitude; even a complete agnostic is not a believer, and thus not a theist, and so they are an atheist. If you prefer, you can append agnostic to atheist, making agnostic atheist. This works because they refer to two different things; atheism to belief and agnosticism to certitude and knowledge. The opposite of agnostic is gnostic, having absolute knowledge.

 

 

 

Belief that god does not exist is still a belief no matter how you want to slice the cake. God cannot be disproved, therefore there is no evidence for that belief - it is a belief based on faith. I have a good feeling you set me up to go in circles on purpose... Go ahead, reiterate yourself, but I'm warning you I'll do the same.

 

 

 

Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist. It is the absence of belief in god. That's it. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

 

 

#2 is atheism, #1 is called strong atheism.

 

 

 

Again. You have completely ignored my points and are strawmanning them. The FSM is wholly seperate from the concept of spaghetti; just because man created spaghetti does not mean that they created whatever type of metaphysical spaghetti the FSM could be made out of. Are you saying that if I changed the name of the FSM to the flying gurkendagglepfizer monster, it would be different?

 

 

 

Again, you didn't answer the question. Since I'm a nice guy I'll answer yours though - yes, it would make it different.

 

 

 

Your question about whether humans created spaghetti? Of course we did, I thought it was rhetorical. My point here was that human made spaghetti would necessarily be different than FSM spaghetti.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. The purpose of claims does not hold any relevance on their being true or not,and could be construed to be a ad hominem argument against the originator.

 

 

 

The only irrelevancy I see here is your bringing up string theory in the first place. Here, let's get back on track. I'm curious to see your response to this paragraph which you must have overlooked:

 

 

 

"Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk. Why? Because neither have proof, therefore should be treated the same." Sorry, but that attitude irritates me."

 

 

 

I don't particularly care if the FSM is plausible or not. I don't believe it, and in fact, I don't think anyone does. The point of the FSM is that the one argument I quoted was is a fallacy. I am simply correcting you, when you stated that FSM spaghetti is the same as earth spaghetti, when it logically cannot be.

 

 

 

Gandhi was a pacifist and didn't rely on physical threats to persuade people to obey his teachings.

 

If you don't believe that Jesus was god and died for our sins, then he didn't really do anything, while Gandi did much for his people.

 

 

 

Jesus didn't do anything? He didn't cause a religion to be created in which charities and the likes sprouted out from, making millions and millions of people's lives more hopeful, peaceful, and loving?

 

 

 

If you are honestly going to sit here and deny all the good things that Christianity has done then what is the point in arguing?

 

 

 

Christianity!=Christ.

 

There are millions of followers of Gandhi, and he is often quoted as a moral authority. I'm not including them in my reckoning, just as I am not reckoning good deeds by christians in my valuation of a single person.

 

That's why, for example, I didn't mention the Inquisition(PLEASE do not respond to this sentence, because I'm not mentioning it :P )

 

Let's see. Gandhi, directly, in his lifetime, and with his own hands, gained independence for India, for example. I don't think Jesus did as much in his lifetime, with his own hands, unless you accept that jesus was god.

 

Let's take their ethical philosophies. I note that you did not respond to my argument that Jesus involved threats(ie. hell) as reasoning for his ethics. Gandhi did not do this. Which is superior in this regard?

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

The smallest unit of measurement though is not the atom, theres finer substructure to levels beyond which the uncertainty priciple applies, I'd also be willing to debate that maths wasnt at all a creation of man, and that it exists independant to him, but it think thats beyond the bounds of this thread"

 

 

 

Oh, I know. I responded already; there are smaller units of measurement, but a piece of coastline's smallest unit is an atom. So therefore you cannot use smaller units without not making any sense. I could bring in the quantum planck length as a smallest length too, but it's not really necessary, because an atom is the smallest piece of coastline that could exist.

[Zierro]

Then in that case you have your infinite. It's an unproven assumption. Maybe he's right(I think so) or maybe he's not. I just choose to remain skeptical, and in any case, once you admit infinite time, then we don't have to have this argument any more, because we have an infinite. I don't deny that I think infinites exist; but we can't prove it.

 

 

 

You think it exists, but yet you say it can't be proven. This sounds very familiar... :-k Oh yeah! It's the mentality that atheism aims to get rid of. Doesn't look like it's working.

 

 

 

Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist. It is the absence of belief in god. That's it. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

 

 

#2 is atheism, #1 is called strong atheism.

 

 

 

Quick question. Do you believe that god exists or do you believe that god doesn't exist?

 

 

 

Your question about whether humans created spaghetti? Of course we did, I thought it was rhetorical. My point here was that human made spaghetti would necessarily be different than FSM spaghetti.

 

 

 

Then why call him that at all? And who says it would be different? There really should be a limit on how rhetorical one can get in a debate. :|

 

 

 

I don't particularly care if the FSM is plausible or not. I don't believe it, and in fact, I don't think anyone does. The point of the FSM is that the one argument I quoted was is a fallacy. I am simply correcting you, when you stated that FSM spaghetti is the same as earth spaghetti, when it logically cannot be.

 

 

 

The FSM was made four years ago and there is proof. Spaghetti was made centuries ago and there is proof. Chances are, without the invention of spaghetti, Bobby Henderson would've chosen a different name for his made-up entity, correct?

 

 

 

Which is superior in this regard?

 

 

 

Ghandi. Now which is superior in regards to self-sacrifice?

[tryto]

Then in that case you have your infinite. It's an unproven assumption. Maybe he's right(I think so) or maybe he's not. I just choose to remain skeptical, and in any case, once you admit infinite time, then we don't have to have this argument any more, because we have an infinite. I don't deny that I think infinites exist; but we can't prove it.

 

 

 

You think it exists, but yet you say it can't be proven. This sounds very familiar... :-k

 

 

 

and so I remain skeptical. Unlike a theist.

 

 

 

Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist. It is the absence of belief in god. That's it. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

 

 

#2 is atheism, #1 is called strong atheism.

 

 

 

Quick question. Do you believe that god exists or do you believe that god doesn't exist?

 

 

 

False dichotomy. I have disbelief in the existence of god. I do not believe that god exists. This is simply the makings of a tautology.

 

 

 

Your question about whether humans created spaghetti? Of course we did, I thought it was rhetorical. My point here was that human made spaghetti would necessarily be different than FSM spaghetti.

 

 

 

Then why call him that at all?

 

 

 

Because it's funny. Heh.

 

 

 

I don't particularly care if the FSM is plausible or not. I don't believe it, and in fact, I don't think anyone does. The point of the FSM is that the one argument I quoted was is a fallacy. I am simply correcting you, when you stated that FSM spaghetti is the same as earth spaghetti, when it logically cannot be.

 

 

 

The FSM was made four years ago and there is proof. Spaghetti was made centuries ago and there is proof. Chances are, without the invention of spaghetti, Bobby Henderson would've chosen a different name for his made-up entity, correct?

 

 

 

Or maybe Bobby Henderson had a genuine religious experience, like Abraham.

 

Perhaps he would have, perhaps he wouldn't have.

 

 

 

Which is superior in this regard?

 

 

 

Ghandi. Now which is superior in regards to self-sacrifice?

 

 

 

If jesus's self-sacrifice was pointless, as it would be if he was not god, then still Gandhi(his hunger strike achieved a definite purpose.)

 

As well, if jesus's self-sacrifice did have a point as if he was god, then he actually didn't suffer anything.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/would_you_go_on_the_cross

[mmmcannibalism]

The FSM was made four years ago and there is proof. Spaghetti was made centuries ago and there is proof. Chances are, without the invention of spaghetti, Bobby Henderson would've chosen a different name for his made-up entity, correct?

 

 

 

no, the book claiming to show his existence was made four years ago. By that logic, The christian god did not come into existence until approximately 0 BC; or whenever the old testament was written if we choose to include it(due to differences between two books in philosophy).

[Zierro]

and so I remain skeptical. Unlike a theist.

 

 

 

I don't think you understand theism then. They don't aim to be 100% convinced, they aim to be 100% committed. And before you say that you need to be convinced in order to be committed, this isn't true. A firefighter is committed to saving as many lives as he can, but this doesn't mean he is completely convinced that his attempts will be successful. In fact, he rarely pays any attention to the proof aspect at all and will still try.

 

 

 

False dichotomy. I have disbelief in the existence of god. I do not believe that god exists. This is simply the makings of a tautology.

 

 

 

It's not a false dichotomy. "I do not believe in god" is the same as "I believe god doesn't exist", atheists just reword it to avoid getting attacked in the same manner that theists are attacked. Just like how they say it isn't a religion. :lol:

 

 

 

If jesus's self-sacrifice was pointless, as it would be if he was not god, then still Gandhi(his hunger strike achieved a definite purpose.)

 

As well, if jesus's self-sacrifice did have a point as if he was god, then he actually didn't suffer anything.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/would ... _the_cross

 

 

 

Now that is what a false dichotomy is.

 

 

 

no, the book claiming to show his existence was made four years ago. By that logic, The christian god did not come into existence until approximately 0 BC; or whenever the old testament was written if we choose to include it(due to differences between two books in philosophy).

 

 

 

Except Bobby doesn't actually believe in it. It was created to make a point.

[iLootChests]

i personally belive god is not real he was spreading the jewish religion the 50 years later someone started calling him jesus christ then around 100-200 years later christianity was started but personally i belive all religions are false so therefor i am a atheist untill someone can provide me with liable information i will jus belive nothing happens after death

[mmmcannibalism]

i personally belive god is not real he was spreading the jewish religion

 

 

 

so just to clarify, god doesnt exist but he was spreading the jewish religion? If so, I give god credit for doing stuff while not existing.

[Lenticular_J]

i personally belive god is not real he was spreading the jewish religion the 50 years later someone started calling him jesus christ then around 100-200 years later christianity was started but personally i belive all religions are false so therefor i am a atheist untill someone can provide me with liable information i will jus belive nothing happens after death

 

You don't even know the history of these religions? Wow. At first, personal beliefs, okay, that's fine. I woulda skipped over, but then I noticed that you were way off. I seriously want to you learn some about religion. You're just ignorant if you criticize without knowing, at the very least, the Legend Valance "truth".

[tryto]

and so I remain skeptical. Unlike a theist.

 

 

 

I don't think you understand theism then. They don't aim to be 100% convinced, they aim to be 100% committed. And before you say that you need to be convinced in order to be committed, this isn't true. A firefighter is committed to saving as many lives as he can, but this doesn't mean he is completely convinced that his attempts will be successful. In fact, he rarely pays any attention to the proof aspect at all and will still try.

 

 

 

So the average christian is skeptical about the existence of god? I think not.

 

 

 

False dichotomy. I have disbelief in the existence of god. I do not believe that god exists. This is simply the makings of a tautology.

 

 

 

It's not a false dichotomy. "I do not believe in god" is the same as "I believe god doesn't exist", atheists just reword it to avoid getting attacked in the same manner that theists are attacked. Just like how they say it isn't a religion. :lol:

 

 

 

Are you saying that atheism is a religion? This is astounding. definition of religion: * a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

 

* an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" . Nope, atheism isn't either. There is a huge difference between having certitude of the non-existence of god and not having certitude.

 

 

 

If jesus's self-sacrifice was pointless, as it would be if he was not god, then still Gandhi(his hunger strike achieved a definite purpose.)

 

As well, if jesus's self-sacrifice did have a point as if he was god, then he actually didn't suffer anything.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/would ... _the_cross

 

 

 

Now that is what a false dichotomy is.

 

 

 

So something can neither have a point nor be pointless? Please, give me an example. The point of a false dichotomy is that there are other options than the two presented; please show me how this act is neither pointless, but also had a point.

 

 

 

no, the book claiming to show his existence was made four years ago. By that logic, The christian god did not come into existence until approximately 0 BC; or whenever the old testament was written if we choose to include it(due to differences between two books in philosophy).

 

 

 

Except Bobby doesn't actually believe in it. It was created to make a point.

 

 

 

So when I wrote an article saying that gun control is good(I don't believe this is true), than gun control is definitely not good? I don't follow; the motivation of the originator has no relevance to the disprovability of something, although it does bring into question the truth of it(but it doesn't matter, since no one believes it anyways)

 

Let's take another example; an author I read invented waterbeds in one of his books, but he didn't believe they were possible. Does that mean they aren't?

[Zierro]

Tic tac toe, four strawmans in a row. This is what happens when every sentence starts with "So...?" or "Are you saying...?".

[tryto]

Tic tac toe, four strawmans in a row. This is what happens when every sentence starts with "So...?" or "Are you saying...?".

 

 

 

Show me. Otherwise, I can simply say "strawman" to every single point you make, be it so or not, and we get nowhere.

 

 

 

#1. I said I was skeptical, and you said I misunderstood theism. I said I was not like a theist because I am skeptical. If you say that I am wrong, it implies that either I am not skeptical, or a theist is skeptical. I am not lying, and thus a theist must be skeptical. Therefore, not a strawman.

 

 

 

#2. Saying that atheism is a religion is 1)untrue 2)a strawman( :P ) and 3)Projectionalism. You are also saying that I am strawmanning my own viewpoint. heh. Since atheism is by definition a lack of religion or the absence of a religion, that's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

 

 

#3. You said that I made a false dichotomy. I then responded that there are indeed, only two possible choices for this option. Either something is pointless, or there is a point to it. That is not a strawman; it is true. I simply ask ; is jesus's action, if he was not the son of god, pointless, or not? You have repeatedly refused to answer.

 

 

 

#4. Blatant misconception. Just because someone doesn't personally believe something, it doesn't mean that it is not true. and this is, indeed what you are arguing. You have argued that because Bobby does not believe in the FSM, when he formulated it, it cannot possibly be true, and this is in the middle of an argument about whether it is disprovable, so I cannot help but assume that is also what you are stating. I then gave a couple examples of my point.

 

 

 

tl;dr; stop committing the fallacy fallacy.

 

 

 

(for fun; you committed d a strawman by saying I planted a strawman, therefore I will not respond to your points)

[Zierro]

Why should I be expected to defend arguments that aren't mine?

 

 

 

#1. I said I was skeptical, and you said I misunderstood theism. I said I was not like a theist because I am skeptical. If you say that I am wrong, it implies that either I am not skeptical, or a theist is skeptical. I am not lying, and thus a theist must be skeptical. Therefore, not a strawman.

 

 

 

My point was that proof is almost always irrelevant to most theists. Therefore, "skeptical" shouldn't be applied.

 

 

 

#2. Saying that atheism is a religion is 1)untrue 2)a strawman( :P ) and 3)Projectionalism. You are also saying that I am strawmanning my own viewpoint. heh. Since atheism is by definition a lack of religion or the absence of a religion, that's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

 

 

You're right - no strawman here. Unfortunately for you, you've made one with your last sentence defending your viewpoint though.

 

 

 

#3. You said that I made a false dichotomy. I then responded that there are indeed, only two possible choices for this option. Either something is pointless, or there is a point to it. That is not a strawman; it is true. I simply ask ; is jesus's action, if he was not the son of god, pointless, or not? You have repeatedly refused to answer.

 

 

 

The having a point/being pointless isn't the dichotomy here. Dictating what has a point and what is pointless and then using them for your argument was the dichotomy.

 

 

 

#4. Blatant misconception. Just because someone doesn't personally believe something, it doesn't mean that it is not true. and this is, indeed what you are arguing. You have argued that because Bobby does not believe in the FSM, when he formulated it, it cannot possibly be true, and this is in the middle of an argument about whether it is disprovable, so I cannot help but assume that is also what you are stating. I then gave a couple examples of my point.

 

 

 

No, but making it as ridiculous as possible and the fact that he made it for a specific reason makes it extremely improbable. Like I said, supporting the FSM isn't doing you any good.

[tryto]

Why should I be expected to defend arguments that aren't mine?

 

 

 

#1. I said I was skeptical, and you said I misunderstood theism. I said I was not like a theist because I am skeptical. If you say that I am wrong, it implies that either I am not skeptical, or a theist is skeptical. I am not lying, and thus a theist must be skeptical. Therefore, not a strawman.

 

 

 

My point was that proof is almost always irrelevant to most theists. Therefore, "skeptical" shouldn't be applied.

 

 

 

In that case I agree. Since I said I was not like a theist in that regard, because, among other things, proof IS important to me.

 

 

 

#2. Saying that atheism is a religion is 1)untrue 2)a strawman( :P ) and 3)Projectionalism. You are also saying that I am strawmanning my own viewpoint. heh. Since atheism is by definition a lack of religion or the absence of a religion, that's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

 

 

You're right - no strawman here. Unfortunately for you, you've made one with your last sentence defending your viewpoint though.

 

 

 

Thanks for admitting you falsely accused me of making a strawman. I don't think you understand the difference between a strawman and an analogy, which is what the second sentence is. It cannot be strawman because that is exactly what you said; namely, that you stated that atheism is a religion. You can argue that the analogy is a false one or it is unapt; but since it is my argument, it cannot be a strawman unless you actually do not in fact believe that atheism is a religion.

 

 

 

#3. You said that I made a false dichotomy. I then responded that there are indeed, only two possible choices for this option. Either something is pointless, or there is a point to it. That is not a strawman; it is true. I simply ask ; is jesus's action, if he was not the son of god, pointless, or not? You have repeatedly refused to answer.

 

 

 

The having a point/being pointless isn't the dichotomy here. Dictating what has a point and what is pointless and then using them for your argument was the dichotomy.

 

 

 

I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking you a simple question; if Jesus was not the son of god, was his sacrifice pointless or not? In fact, here, you are the one who has the opportunity to decide what you think.

 

 

 

#4. Blatant misconception. Just because someone doesn't personally believe something, it doesn't mean that it is not true. and this is, indeed what you are arguing. You have argued that because Bobby does not believe in the FSM, when he formulated it, it cannot possibly be true, and this is in the middle of an argument about whether it is disprovable, so I cannot help but assume that is also what you are stating. I then gave a couple examples of my point.

 

 

 

No, but making it as ridiculous as possible and the fact that he made it for a specific reason makes it extremely improbable. Like I said, supporting the FSM isn't doing you any good.

 

 

 

That's it! It is extremely improbable. But it is also impossible to disprove. There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what happens when you respond to paragraphs with a single patronizing line. You don't develop your points, and so I have to guess what you mean when you say I "misunderstand theism".

[Zierro]

In that case I agree. Since I said I was not like a theist in that regard, because, among other things, proof IS important to me.

 

 

 

Apparently you don't when you say that, if you believe in god, then you should also believe in the FSM. Like I said, theists don't care to be 100% convinced they care to be 100% committed.

 

 

 

Thanks for admitting you falsely accused me of making a strawman. I don't think you understand the difference between a strawman and an analogy, which is what the second sentence is. It cannot be strawman because that is exactly what you said; namely, that you stated that atheism is a religion. You can argue that the analogy is a false one or it is unapt; but since it is my argument, it cannot be a strawman unless you actually do not in fact believe that atheism is a religion.

 

 

 

When the analogy doesn't apply then it is a strawman. You are saying that X = Y, where X is my real argument and Y is a ridiculous one you made up yourself in which you are telling me X is similar to, therefore X is just as ridiculous. X is not Y and treating it as such is the same as attacking an argument that is not mine.

 

 

 

Personally, I have no opinion on whether it is a religion or not, as that would just be a debate purely about semantics, and while I do enjoy most of them, this one would be boring because I'd much rather debate other topics in regards to god's existence. However, I do notice that atheists vigorously try to push themselves as far away from theists as possible to evade their own arguments being used against them. If you do not believe in atheism then you are a theist. If you do believe in atheism then you are condoning the usage of faith.

 

 

 

I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking you a simple question; if Jesus was not the son of god, was his sacrifice pointless or not? In fact, here, you are the one who has the opportunity to decide what you think.

 

 

 

He still felt the pain and humility. It would be completely pointless if a god was crucified because like you said, it wouldn't be a sacrifice. That's why god chose a human form - one which experiences human experiences such as pain. So it was a sacrifice.

 

 

 

That's it! It is extremely improbable. But it is also impossible to disprove. There is a difference.

 

 

 

Much much much more improbable than the fact that a god exists. That's where the FSM fails. It attempts to make god seem just as improbable as it is, but as I pointed out, Bobby purposely tried making it sound as improbable as possible.

 

 

 

This is what happens when you respond to paragraphs with a single patronizing line. You don't develop your points, and so I have to guess what you mean when you say I "misunderstand theism".

 

 

 

You only give what you get. I'd probably take your arguments a little more seriously if you did so yourself.

[mmmcannibalism]

This is going to end up being a logical stalemate. Atheists clearly have a flaw in the need for disproof which would be impossible, theists would need proof of a god which is also impossible, and agnostics will simply attack logical flaws in either argument. Specific religions will be discredited due to logical flaws in their doctrine.

 

 

 

You cant prove or disprove god, so agnosticism is in a practical sense the only "religion" that is correct. Thats not to say a belief/disbelief in god is wrong, just not supported by anything besides faith or the lack there of.

[warri0r45]

I do notice that atheists vigorously try to push themselves as far away from theists as possible to evade their own arguments being used against them. If you do not believe in atheism then you are a theist. If you do believe in atheism then you are condoning the usage of faith.

 

 

 

Here's the thing. Atheists generally don't agree with the concept of having faith in things, hence why they become atheists. The most broad definition of atheism (as has been said ad nauseum in this thread and others) is a lack of belief in god. We don't believe what you do. That's not to say we believe your god doesn't exist, it's just that we're not into believing things on faith.

 

 

 

It's no wonder why atheists try to push themselves away from theists when the number one thing theists seem to get hung up on is pushing athieists closer to them with all this nonsense about atheism being a faith and a religion.

[tryto]

In that case I agree. Since I said I was not like a theist in that regard, because, among other things, proof IS important to me.

 

 

 

Apparently you don't when you say that, if you believe in god, then you should also believe in the FSM. Like I said, theists don't care to be 100% convinced they care to be 100% committed.

 

 

 

I never said that. Remind me what logical fallacy that is? :P

 

No one seriously believes in the FSM, and no one should. The same reasons for people not believing in the FSM should be similar to the reasons why I don't believe in god, namely, that just because something cannot be disproven, does not mean that it must exist(a fallacy committed by many, many theists).

 

 

 

Thanks for admitting you falsely accused me of making a strawman. I don't think you understand the difference between a strawman and an analogy, which is what the second sentence is. It cannot be strawman because that is exactly what you said; namely, that you stated that atheism is a religion. You can argue that the analogy is a false one or it is unapt; but since it is my argument, it cannot be a strawman unless you actually do not in fact believe that atheism is a religion.

 

 

 

When the analogy doesn't apply then it is a strawman. You are saying that X = Y, where X is my real argument and Y is a ridiculous one you made up yourself in which you are telling me X is similar to, therefore X is just as ridiculous. X is not Y and treating it as such is the same as attacking an argument that is not mine.

 

 

 

I said that x is ..wait for it...LIKE Y. Thank you.

 

I showed that x is like y, because both are the absence of something, like atheism is the absence or lack of a belief in god, while baldness is the absence or lack of hair. Hence my argument is implicit.

 

 

 

Personally, I have no opinion on whether it is a religion or not, as that would just be a debate purely about semantics, and while I do enjoy most of them, this one would be boring because I'd much rather debate other topics in regards to god's existence. However, I do notice that atheists vigorously try to push themselves as far away from theists as possible to evade their own arguments being used against them. If you do not believe in atheism then you are a theist. If you do believe in atheism then you are condoning the usage of faith.

 

 

 

You cannot believe in the lack of something, by definition. Believing in something without evidence is faith, and believing in something with evidence is justified belief. For example, theists believe in god without evidence(like you mentioned earlier). Thus, it is faith(I'm working off of Paul's statement here, which I find no issue with). An example is the Riemann Hypothesis. Most mathematicians believe it is true. They believe this, not on no evidence, but on the very great evidence that the first 15 trillion numbers agree with it. This is not faith. First you state that atheism is a religion, then you say you have no opinion. Either choose your first statement, that atheism is a religion and defend it, or take the second statement and drop it.

 

 

 

I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking you a simple question; if Jesus was not the son of god, was his sacrifice pointless or not? In fact, here, you are the one who has the opportunity to decide what you think.

 

 

 

He still felt the pain and humility. It would be completely pointless if a god was crucified because like you said, it wouldn't be a sacrifice. That's why god chose a human form - one which experiences human experiences such as pain. So it was a sacrifice.

 

 

 

I don't deny that he felt much pain(should he have existed). However, there is a clear difference between dying for a cause, which Gandhi did, and which jesus would have done if he were the son of god, and dying for no cause. In your argument, wouldn't a suicide be just as great a sacrifice? They suffer great pain as well, yet it is self-evident that a suicide does not quite the same thing that Gandi did.

 

 

 

That's it! It is extremely improbable. But it is also impossible to disprove. There is a difference.

 

 

 

Much much much more improbable than the fact that a god exists. That's where the FSM fails. It attempts to make god seem just as improbable as it is, but as I pointed out, Bobby purposely tried making it sound as improbable as possible.

 

 

 

The FSM is less likely than another god, and so it is not a good mockery of a logical fallacy? The FSM *is* a god in all true definitions of the word, it supposedly created the earth and the universe, is all powerful and infinite...I don't see where it differs. We really have no idea what your deistic god could look like; and is it absolutely impossible for it to look like spaghetti? No.

 

 

 

This is what happens when you respond to paragraphs with a single patronizing line. You don't develop your points, and so I have to guess what you mean when you say I "misunderstand theism".

 

 

 

You only give what you get. I'd probably take your arguments a little more seriously if you did so yourself.

 

 

 

Oh now. I'd like to see an example of a statement I made where I simply wrongly accused you of a logical fallacy in a single sentence with absolutely nothing, not even attempting to back it up.

[mmmcannibalism]

People that worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster are idiots...

 

 

 

More specifically, idiots that haven't heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Much cooler god. It has the power to be invisible and pink at the same time.)

 

 

 

I was about to post how noone actually worships the FSM when I read that first line, you got me. :lol:

[Zierro]

Here's the thing. Atheists generally don't agree with the concept of having faith in things, hence why they become atheists. The most broad definition of atheism (as has been said ad nauseum in this thread and others) is a lack of belief in god. We don't believe what you do. That's not to say we believe your god doesn't exist, it's just that we're not into believing things on faith.

 

 

 

Too bad their worldview is not consistent because everyone has beliefs without hardcore proof attached to them. I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to god's existence now. Science states that every effect must have a cause - so the universe has to have a cause. Is observational evidence available let alone even possible when it comes to determining what caused the universe? Not at all. There are two possibilities. God created the universe or something that is not god created the universe - neither possibility has any empirical proof yet you incline yourself to choose the latter - without any evidence whatsoever. You're picking and choosing. No matter how you want to slice the cake, everyone has faith.

 

 

 

It's no wonder why atheists try to push themselves away from theists when the number one thing theists seem to get hung up on is pushing athieists closer to them with all this nonsense about atheism being a faith and a religion.

 

 

 

Theists don't make the claim that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are completely separate ideas. :lol: Perhaps you need me to show you the definition of belief?

 

 

 

Oh and get your own jabs, that's totally unoriginal. :P

[mmmcannibalism]

Let's apply this to god's existence now. Science states that every effect must have a cause - so the universe has to have a cause. Is observational evidence available let alone even possible when it comes to determining what caused the universe? Not at all. There are two possibilities. God created the universe or something that is not god created the universe - neither possibility has any empirical proof yet you incline yourself to choose the latter - without any evidence whatsoever. You're picking and choosing. No matter how you want to slice the cake, everyone has faith.

 

 

 

Or the universe could have been around forever, albeit through iterations caused by big bang big crunch cycles.Believing everything can be explained through the laws of physics(and the derived chem, bio, etc.) is not a disbelief.

 

 

 

There are different forms of not believing in god

 

 

 

some people simply believe it is technically possible for god to exist but dont believe he does, others believe devoutly that god does not exist. The first group is not truly a religion its in a word doubtful agnosticism

 

 

 

of course everyone will have hardcore beliefs without proof, since the concept of god(a being who's existence cant be prooved or disproved) exists one inevitably has some nonempirical view of it.

[mmmcannibalism]

The one thing that bugs me about Christianity is that we can prove the Universe is still expanding. If God created it in six (?) days, why is it still expanding? It was expanding a month ago.

 

 

 

It just bothers me that when faced with two scenarios:

 

 

 

A. A series of random ocurences resulted in the creation of everything; or...

 

 

 

B. The Universe was created in under a week by something who's only proof is in a book from 2,000 years ago.

 

 

 

They choose B.

 

 

 

the old testamant which holds the creation myth is far older then 2000 years.

[warri0r45]

Here's the thing. Atheists generally don't agree with the concept of having faith in things, hence why they become atheists. The most broad definition of atheism (as has been said ad nauseum in this thread and others) is a lack of belief in god. We don't believe what you do. That's not to say we believe your god doesn't exist, it's just that we're not into believing things on faith.

 

 

 

Too bad their worldview is not consistent because everyone has beliefs without hardcore proof attached to them. I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to god's existence now. Science states that every effect must have a cause - so the universe has to have a cause. Is observational evidence available let alone even possible when it comes to determining what caused the universe? Not at all. There are two possibilities. God created the universe or something that is not god created the universe - neither possibility has any empirical proof yet you incline yourself to choose the latter - without any evidence whatsoever. You're picking and choosing. No matter how you want to slice the cake, everyone has faith.

 

 

 

It's no wonder why atheists try to push themselves away from theists when the number one thing theists seem to get hung up on is pushing athieists closer to them with all this nonsense about atheism being a faith and a religion.

 

 

 

Theists don't make the claim that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are completely separate ideas. :lol: Perhaps you need me to show you the definition of belief?

 

 

 

Oh and get your own jabs, that's totally unoriginal. :P

 

 

 

Please don't make up what I believe and what I don't. If you would have asked me I would have told you.

 

 

 

When it comes to the supernatural, I'm skeptical because there's no evidence for it and it's too easy a cop-out. I don't believe that supernatural things don't exist because I can't possibly know that. As for natural explanations, there is plenty of evidence for those so generally speaking there will be no faith (let's take these on a case by case basis, though). Whatever I take as valid I will back up with evidence, preferably a lot. If I have little or no evidence I'll gladly concede a level of uncertainty to an explanation. I'm inclined to believe that any given phenomenon will have a natural exlanation because of the precedent set by science. I wouldn't call this faith any more than the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith. That's a good word to use, actually.. expectation. If there is something unexplained or unknown I would expect there to be a natural explanation to it. Any rational thinker should.

 

 

 

As for what I'm inclined to believe caused the universe, I'd say the natural explanation but that's only a slight inclination (because again, there's a precedent for natural explanations). Fundamentally I don't know, so I don't believe in either.

 

 

 

So no, not everyone has faith. I don't.

 

 

 

Now that I've cleared that up, perhaps you could tell me what you mean by this:

Theists don't make the claim that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are completely separate ideas. :lol: Perhaps you need me to show you the definition of belief?

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that theists think that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are the same thing?