Ok I'll take the bait.

 

You clearly cannot comprehend the post (and I say *you* because a few people have pm'd me in game saying they understood it.), I said that you believe, (which you do) that only your way is the way.

Again it is not MY way. I do not have beliefs in any one thing. I do not believe in evolution, I believe in whatever thing currently has the most evidence. It just so happens that evolution is the currently accepted model. This is where my "beliefs" differ from your "beliefs". Belief in a god is an incredibly narrow thing to believe in. Evolution is not the only way. There are an infinite number of ways that humans could have come into existence, and if any of those ways had a landslide of evidence I would believe in it. If god had the most evidence, I would not deny his existence. But, if there was scientific evidence of a god, it would be considered scientific to believe in him. Scientists would work on understanding his existence.

Proof right here: "I could describe to you exactly where the objective logical error has occurred." You've already come to the conclusion my belief's are illogical, without even truly knowing what they are.

If you firmly believe that any supernatural being exists, created anything, interferes with destinies, then yes I already know that there is a logical flaw. I have devoted most of my life to reading books about science and religion, and have had plenty of debates on the issue. I know that there is absolutely no logical reason to firmly believe that a god exists. I've heard all the "reasons" before, and none of them are sound reasons.

So why should I trust my your decisions? Why should I even try to defend something, when I don't even know what I'm defending them against.

Got lost in your writing here. Not sure what you meant to say

I never said I wasn't against discussing, I love discussing. However, I am against telling.

Actually all you have done so far has been telling. You are just telling your beliefs without giving any support for the reasons you come to your conclusions. Discussions don't just involve someone saying "Hi I think ____" and the other person says "Oh wow, cool, I think ____" "Oh really? Nice to meet you, bye". A discussion would be "I think that _____ because _____" and then the other person can say "But what about ______?"

You telling me this, and that. It's not debating, it's fighting.

I've attempted to debate. I'm still debating and have been debating by making claims and supporting them.

If you would have a more open mind, I'd gladly post my beliefs.

If being "open minded" means "listening to what you have to say and not providing you with evidence that will conflict with your faith" then I guess I wont be "open minded." You are responsible for defending your beliefs. If you cant defend a belief then you have no reason to believe it.

But there is nothing special about my beliefs. I would not hold onto what I think is true. I would not be an evolutionist if there were compelling evidence that ended up disproving evolution. If there was compelling evidence of a god, for instance him coming out of the sky and talking to us and openly communicating with us throughout history, I would not deny him. I would want to study his existance. The problem is with people who believe that a certain theory is correct and will always be correct despite whatever evidence there ever will be.

 

 

You realize this is terribly hypocritical, as you believe that your atheistic beliefs are a theory you always hold correct despite whatever evidence there may be.

1) Ok you missed my point.

 

2) No you don't know there's a logical flaw, please tell us and I will again, eat my words if you're right.

 

3) Yea that was a typo. You ask me to defend my viewpoints, but defend them against what? Your viewpoints? Facts? logic? Rationality? I most certainly would, but again, you wouldn't be giving them an earnest look at, and try to comprehend them. And thats the key point in debating, is understanding the other side.

 

4) I've not given any of my beliefs on this topic. Though I did say I think the Creationist story is close to the big bang, but thats it. And you named it yourself, you're not going to say "but what about?" You're going to say "No. THIS IS IT. You're WRONG." And thats what I mean by telling vs. debating.

 

5) You've supported your claims against ALG, none against mine.

 

6) Hmmm. I feel bad for the essays you're forced to read. Poor works of art, they have no idea they are about to be destroyed by your eyes.

 

6a) Didn't know what the above line was about? Your reading comprehension sucks. While I may not write the most coherent posts, cripes at least I can read.

If you cant defend a belief then you have no reason to believe it.

I will play the role of a christian. I know in my heart that god is real.

But there is nothing special about my beliefs. I would not hold onto what I think is true. I would not be an evolutionist if there were compelling evidence that ended up disproving evolution. If there was compelling evidence of a god, for instance him coming out of the sky and talking to us and openly communicating with us throughout history, I would not deny him. I would want to study his existance. The problem is with people who believe that a certain theory is correct and will always be correct despite whatever evidence there ever will be.

 

 

You realize this is terribly hypocritical, as you believe that your atheistic beliefs are a theory you always hold correct despite whatever evidence there may be.

 

Atheism is not a theory, it is a lack of a theory. Atheism means you are without religion. (with religion referring to a devotion/belief/faith in some type of supernatural god or diety. I know that many people do not consider this to be theism, but its the type of theism that atheism refers to)

 

Atheism means that I will live my life based on whatever it is that is real, and supported by evidence.

 

"a theory you always hold correct despite whatever evidence there may be" What type of evidence would contradict a belief in whatever has the most supporting evidence? I'm not even sure your sentence makes sense.

 

 

Saru:

1) Ok you missed my point.

-So then restate your point. Many people miss a lot of points on here, and we dont respond simply by saying "you missed it..." We then elaborate, restate, and continue to support our beliefs.

 

2) No you don't know there's a logical flaw, please tell us and I will again, eat my words if you're right.

-You are right, I dont KNOW. But also I dont KNOW that there isnt a unicorn standing behind me right now. It would have been more correct for me to say "I have an extreme certainty that I can disprove you" but I get sick of being so careful with language that essentially means the same thing.

 

3) Yea that was a typo. You ask me to defend my viewpoints, but defend them against what? Your viewpoints? Facts? logic? Rationality? I most certainly would, but again, you wouldn't be giving them an earnest look at, and try to comprehend them. And thats the key point in debating, is understanding the other side.

-I would read them, try to see the logic in them, and respond. You dont necessarily need to defend them against a particular thing. By "defend" i mean to simply state what you think, and your reasons for thinking that way. Claim and support

 

4) I've not given any of my beliefs on this topic. Though I did say I think the Creationist story is close to the big bang, but thats it. And you named it yourself, you're not going to say "but what about?" You're going to say "No. THIS IS IT. You're WRONG." And thats what I mean by telling vs. debating.

-I don't think I have said anywhere that the big bang is the only thing that could possibly be correct.

 

5) You've supported your claims against ALG, none against mine.

-You just said in #4 "I've not given any of my beliefs on this topic" so I'm not sure how I should support anything against you when you aren't making any arguments against me.

 

6) Hmmm. I feel bad for the essays you're forced to read. Poor works of art, they have no idea they are about to be destroyed by your eyes.

-What?

 

6a) Didn't know what the above line was about? Your reading comprehension sucks. While I may not write the most coherent posts, cripes at least I can read.

-Theres a difference between reading comprehension and magically understanding what somebody means to write. Cow bland chew if thrown too far with apple drinks quickly. Dont understand what I mean? Wow apparently you can't read.

 

I will play the role of a christian. I know in my heart that god is real.

 

And what evidence leads you to know this? Also: what if I say "I know in my heart that god does not exist"? Surely one of us must be correct. Neither argument has even the slightest integrity.

 

PS I'm going to sleep cause I gotta be up in 6 hours. Seeya tomorrow

 

I will play the role of a christian. I know in my heart that god is real.

 

And what evidence leads you to know this? Also: what if I say "I know in my heart that god does not exist"? Surely one of us must be correct. Neither argument has even the slightest integrity.

 

PS I'm going to sleep cause I gotta be up in 6 hours. Seeya tomorrow

But see, that is the flaw. As long as we are not 100% sure about something we can not know who is right or wrong. The debate is pointless other then for entertainment purposes.

 

Atheism is not a theory, it is a lack of a theory. Atheism means you are without religion. (with religion referring to a devotion/belief/faith in some type of supernatural god or diety. I know that many people do not consider this to be theism, but its the type of theism that atheism refers to)

 

Atheism means that I will live my life based on whatever it is that is real, and supported by evidence.

 

"a theory you always hold correct despite whatever evidence there may be" What type of evidence would contradict a belief in whatever has the most supporting evidence? I'm not even sure your sentence makes sense.

 

 

Atheism means you don't believe in the existence of a God.

 

There are two states God could be in - existence and nonexistence. There may be no evidence to claim God exists(I disagree, but that's for another topic) but there's certainly no evidence to claim he doesn't.

 

It boils down to personal preference - you prefer to believe only in what you know to be 100% certain, I prefer to believe in something rather than nothing.

 

It does not make me stupid, or less intelligent then you.

 

Actually reputable sources would not disagree that 40-45% of you harbors evil thoughts about America

that shows right there that you consider all of Islam, regular people and extremist factions, to be one and the same. Nice job, fail troll is fail, gtfo, the usual crap.

 

I was being sarcastic, that's why I mentioned that 40-45% of a person would harbor hate...

 

Sorry if it wasn't obvious enough :P

 

But see, that is the flaw. As long as we are not 100% sure about something we can not know who is right or wrong. The debate is pointless other then for entertainment purposes.

 

So then I suppose you also think that theres no point in discussing how deep the ocean is? Or how fast light moves? Or how fast sound moves? Or whether the sky is blue? Or why we see the phases of the moon? Every single thing in the world is uncertain. However, this does not mean that each person is equally right in choosing any theory. Just because god COULD exist does not mean there is a 50% chance that he does exist, just like there is not a 50% chance of a unicorn running past your window right now. You COULD be right if you believe that he will run past right now, but that doesn't make it 50% likely. You would be an idiot to live your life on the assumption that you should prepare for a unicorn attack.

 

Atheism means you don't believe in the existence of a God.

 

There are two states God could be in - existence and nonexistence. There may be no evidence to claim God exists(I disagree, but that's for another topic) but there's certainly no evidence to claim he doesn't.

 

It boils down to personal preference - you prefer to believe only in what you know to be 100% certain, I prefer to believe in something rather than nothing.

 

It does not make me stupid, or less intelligent then you.

 

Again I refer you to the above about the liklihood that god, or ANYTHING, exists. Theres no evidence to show you that your town wont be annihilated tomorrow by an invisible asteroid. Should you start evacuating? Theres a difference between thinking that something MIGHT exist, and living ones life on the assumption that it DOES exist.

 

Also, atheism DOES NOT mean outward rejection of god. If we saw something like a giant man floating around in the sky, and he talked to us, and explained things to us, and took us to distant galaxies, atheists would not deny this particular existence (yes, this example is ridiculous. it is just an example). Atheism is the rejection of the idea of religion, that one should throw away logic and reason in favor of blind faith. If "religion" just so happened to refer to blindly believing in the existence of some other thing, we would reject that too. Atheism is not specifically a rejection of the idea of a god.

 

Also I do not know anything 100% for certain, as I have said before. In a way, maybe I believe in some things more than you. Would you say that santa claus 100% does not exist? The easter bunny? Allah? Thor? Zeus? Would you say that there is a 100% chance that no unicorns are on this earth? Pixies? Vampires? I wont assume that you do before you get a chance to answer.

 

And finally I have never claimed to be more intelligent. I have claimed to be more logical, rational, and also more concerned with reality. Perhaps you have only made the assumption that anyone who rejects logic, reason, and reality must be less intelligent. To the best of my recollection, I have not said this.

 

But see, that is the flaw. As long as we are not 100% sure about something we can not know who is right or wrong. The debate is pointless other then for entertainment purposes.

 

So then I suppose you also think that theres no point in discussing how deep the ocean is? Or how fast light moves? Or how fast sound moves? Or whether the sky is blue? Or why we see the phases of the moon? Every single thing in the world is uncertain. However, this does not mean that each person is equally right in choosing any theory. Just because god COULD exist does not mean there is a 50% chance that he does exist, just like there is not a 50% chance of a unicorn running past your window right now. You COULD be right if you believe that he will run past right now, but that doesn't make it 50% likely. You would be an idiot to live your life on the assumption that you should prepare for a unicorn attack.

 

 

You can certainly theorize about things. The thing is, a god has never been observed in science. Usually if we can't prove something we assume its not correct. But how would you prove something that controls every bit of matter and antimatter? Everything we know could be proven 99.999...% correct but we would never be able to prove a god exists on the assumption that it has control over all of existence. No one has ever seen a unicorn, we can say that it does not exist because our definition of a unicorn is of an animal, not of an all knowing being that controls everything. Someone could argue you that god caused the big bang and they have a 50% chance of being right.

 

Then you have a 50% vs 50% debate with no substance and all personal opinion.

 

Again I refer you to the above about the liklihood that god, or ANYTHING, exists. Theres no evidence to show you that your town wont be annihilated tomorrow by an invisible asteroid. Should you start evacuating? Theres a difference between thinking that something MIGHT exist, and living ones life on the assumption that it DOES exist.

 

Also, atheism DOES NOT mean outward rejection of god. If we saw something like a giant man floating around in the sky, and he talked to us, and explained things to us, and took us to distant galaxies, atheists would not deny this particular existence (yes, this example is ridiculous. it is just an example). Atheism is the rejection of the idea of religion, that one should throw away logic and reason in favor of blind faith. If "religion" just so happened to refer to blindly believing in the existence of some other thing, we would reject that too. Atheism is not specifically a rejection of the idea of a god.

 

Also I do not know anything 100% for certain, as I have said before. In a way, maybe I believe in some things more than you. Would you say that santa claus 100% does not exist? The easter bunny? Allah? Thor? Zeus? Would you say that there is a 100% chance that no unicorns are on this earth? Pixies? Vampires? I wont assume that you do before you get a chance to answer.

 

And finally I have never claimed to be more intelligent. I have claimed to be more logical, rational, and also more concerned with reality. Perhaps you have only made the assumption that anyone who rejects logic, reason, and reality must be less intelligent. To the best of my recollection, I have not said this.

 

Do you even know what the definition of athiesm is? Athiesm means rejection of the idea of a god. For example - I consider myself a Thiest - I beleive firmly in a God - but I don't follow a religion.

 

From dictionary.com:

 

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:

158090; < Gk áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

 

 

World English Dictionary

atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm)

 

n

rejection of belief in God or gods

 

[C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]

 

 

atheism

1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist).

 

 

Cultural Dictionary

atheism [( ay -thee-iz-uhm)]

 

Denial that there is a God. ( Compare agnosticism.)

 

Also - I believe Allah and the Christian God to be one and the same - indeed Christians and Muslims just believe different things about him.

 

Let's look at your numerous theism-bashing posts, shall we?

 

It is not MY logical view of the universe, it is the view that anyone would have if they look at the proof and evidence.

Yet you've constantly said there is no proof or evidence...

 

Religion is not a school of thought, it is a school of un-thought. If you were religious, and actually spent your time thinking instead of just blindly following, I dont think youd be religious for very long.

 

I find it ridiculous and incredibly narrow-minded that you seem to have decided that every person who believes in God has blindly followed what other people are telling them, and has never thought for themselves. Thousands of the greatest scientific, artistic, and brilliant minds over the history of mankind have been religious, yet you somehow consider yourself above them intellectually simply because you're atheist?

 

Personally, I've spent the last 5 years of life constantly revisiting my religious beliefs. Constantly thinking about what is logical, and what isn't. Constantly trying to see why certain things are the way they are. They made have turned me off from organized religion in a sense but at the same time they've solidified my firm belief in a higher power.

 

And I have repeatedly tried to ask you what these things are. What events? What good has it brought?

 

What good? Seriously? Our entire legal system's origins were based on the laws of the church - even if God doesn't exist(as you claim) look at the saints, people like mother Teresa, people who spent their entire lives contributing to the world in the best way possible - all of that was done due to belief in God.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that there is much about this world science, and pure "fact"(whatever your interpretation of that is) cannot explain, and may never be able to.

 

In fact - I see the existance of a God as a far more logical and reasonable deduction then to say we came from nowhere. Nothing on this earth comes from nowhere as we currently know it, why should our origins be any different?

Religion is not a school of thought, it is a school of un-thought. If you were religious, and actually spent your time thinking instead of just blindly following, I dont think youd be religious for very long.

 

I find it ridiculous and incredibly narrow-minded that you seem to have decided that every person who believes in God has blindly followed what other people are telling them, and has never thought for themselves. Thousands of the greatest scientific, artistic, and brilliant minds over the history of mankind have been religious, yet you somehow consider yourself above them intellectually simply because you're atheist?

Of course, on the other hand, if nobody had ever told you there was a God, you probably wouldn't believe in one (at least not in the traditional sense, any way).

Well, like I said - I'm a theist - I believe in the existence of a God, but I don't believe much about him.

I agree with Y guy all the way. This school computer strangely doesn't allow me to quote topics...

 

Well if you don't care, why are you getting so worked up? :huh:

I wasn't saying I dont care, I was saying that I did not understand your writing. I didnt know what I was supposedly caring or not caring about

Point being, though slightly unrelated, is that your spaghetti monster is the exact same as my Jesus. Atheism is a religion, people with brains don't deny it, science, could be said, is your "God." However, the Spaghetti monster is your attack on other Gods. You try to invalidate our God with your spaghetti monster, then call Religions petty because they fight over stupid little Gods. Only to not realize you are doing the same thing, whether you admit to it or not.

 

How is athiesm a religion? Actually by definition it is a lack of religion. I do not believe in anything. I observe facts and make logical deductions about the nature of reality. My views about the world are not fixed and I hold no "beliefs" or "faiths". Right now, I have concluded that evolution was the process that brought humans into existance, but if new evidence emerged then my views would change.

 

Religion is a belief in one thing, a belief based on faith and not on evidence. It is irrational, and illogical. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a belief, and it is not a faith in anything.

 

 

You don't understand logic, and that's the one thing that sticks out. Also, it's irrational to try and rationalize an irrational world.

 

Second, Atheism is a religion, however Atheists won't admit it, because let's face it. Religoin is for illogical ppls@!

Atheism is not based on the belief of something. Science is knowledge, not belief. Therefore, it's not a religion.

 

And really, religion-wise, America is regressing. Come over to Europe if you don't wanna be bothered by ignorants like GB.

 

Well if you don't care, why are you getting so worked up? :huh:

I wasn't saying I dont care, I was saying that I did not understand your writing. I didnt know what I was supposedly caring or not caring about

Point being, though slightly unrelated, is that your spaghetti monster is the exact same as my Jesus. Atheism is a religion, people with brains don't deny it, science, could be said, is your "God." However, the Spaghetti monster is your attack on other Gods. You try to invalidate our God with your spaghetti monster, then call Religions petty because they fight over stupid little Gods. Only to not realize you are doing the same thing, whether you admit to it or not.

 

How is athiesm a religion? Actually by definition it is a lack of religion. I do not believe in anything. I observe facts and make logical deductions about the nature of reality. My views about the world are not fixed and I hold no "beliefs" or "faiths". Right now, I have concluded that evolution was the process that brought humans into existance, but if new evidence emerged then my views would change.

 

Religion is a belief in one thing, a belief based on faith and not on evidence. It is irrational, and illogical. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a belief, and it is not a faith in anything.

 

 

You don't understand logic, and that's the one thing that sticks out. Also, it's irrational to try and rationalize an irrational world.

 

Second, Atheism is a religion, however Atheists won't admit it, because let's face it. Religoin is for illogical ppls@!

Atheism is not based on the belief of something. Science is knowledge, not belief. Therefore, it's not a religion.

 

And really, religion-wise, America is regressing. Come over to Europe if you don't wanna be bothered by ignorants like GB.

Yes, I'm sure there are no idiots in Europe :rolleyes:

Much less the cost hassle of moving to another continent over petty political differences. Can we please shut up about moving away to Europe? Its [bleep]ing stupid and no ones gonna do it.

I'd like to see this as a news ticker:

Glenn Beck holds Rally in DC - Conservative estimates puts attendance at 350,000, Liberal estimates at 87,000.

 

You can certainly theorize about things. The thing is, a god has never been observed in science. Usually if we can't prove something we assume its not correct. But how would you prove something that controls every bit of matter and antimatter? Everything we know could be proven 99.999...% correct but we would never be able to prove a god exists on the assumption that it has control over all of existence. No one has ever seen a unicorn, we can say that it does not exist because our definition of a unicorn is of an animal, not of an all knowing being that controls everything.

Someone could argue you that god caused the big bang and they have a 50% chance of being right.

 

Then you have a 50% vs 50% debate with no substance and all personal opinion.

 

And how about the invisible asteroid? Also the asteroid can only collide with Earth objects. And the asteroid is undetectable by any other means. Therefore, according to your 50-50 logic, there is a 50-50 chance of an asteroid coming to hit your town tomorrow...oh wait, I made the theory up yesterday. That means theres a 50% chance of it coming today! Run away!

 

Just because something is unprovable does not give it a 50% chance of being correct. Also, what the hell? What about all of the other theories for why the universe exists? What if "universes" are the brains of an enormous lifeform. The stars are the brain cells. What if the universe as we see it is actually a computer simulation? Now we are up to 4 theories and since each theory is equally probable (according to your logic) that means that now there is only a 25% chance that God believers are correct. If I came up with 6 more theories, they would all have to be equiprobable (by your logic, not mine), and then each of us only has a 10% chance of being right. There are an infinite number of theories possible for what the universe is, which would mean that there is now a 1 in ininifty chance that either of us is correct, which means then that we both have a 0% chance of being right. (again this is only using your logic that each theory for the origin of the universe is equiprobable)

 

 

Again I refer you to the above about the liklihood that god, or ANYTHING, exists. Theres no evidence to show you that your town wont be annihilated tomorrow by an invisible asteroid. Should you start evacuating? Theres a difference between thinking that something MIGHT exist, and living ones life on the assumption that it DOES exist.

 

Also, atheism DOES NOT mean outward rejection of god. If we saw something like a giant man floating around in the sky, and he talked to us, and explained things to us, and took us to distant galaxies, atheists would not deny this particular existence (yes, this example is ridiculous. it is just an example). Atheism is the rejection of the idea of religion, that one should throw away logic and reason in favor of blind faith. If "religion" just so happened to refer to blindly believing in the existence of some other thing, we would reject that too. Atheism is not specifically a rejection of the idea of a god.

 

Also I do not know anything 100% for certain, as I have said before. In a way, maybe I believe in some things more than you. Would you say that santa claus 100% does not exist? The easter bunny? Allah? Thor? Zeus? Would you say that there is a 100% chance that no unicorns are on this earth? Pixies? Vampires? I wont assume that you do before you get a chance to answer.

 

And finally I have never claimed to be more intelligent. I have claimed to be more logical, rational, and also more concerned with reality. Perhaps you have only made the assumption that anyone who rejects logic, reason, and reality must be less intelligent. To the best of my recollection, I have not said this.

 

Do you even know what the definition of athiesm is? Athiesm means rejection of the idea of a god. For example - I consider myself a Thiest - I beleive firmly in a God - but I don't follow a religion.

 

From dictionary.com:

*snip*

But my point is that there is nothing particular about the god theory. Suppose, for instance, it became largely popular to think that the universe is a computer simulation. (and suppose this theory becomes as popular as religion) However, there was not a shred of viable evidence that supports the theory. This "virtual reality theory" would become the new "religion" and "atheists" would be against that "theory." What I am saying is that atheists do not deny god based on principle alone. If we live in a universe where god freely interacted with us (like, stuck giant hands down out of the sky and took us around to explore the universe) then atheists would not be people who sit around and reject his existence. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the particular theory of god, an atheist would reject any theory for which there is no evidence.

Also - I believe Allah and the Christian God to be one and the same - indeed Christians and Muslims just believe different things about him.

 

Let's look at your numerous theism-bashing posts, shall we?

 

It is not MY logical view of the universe, it is the view that anyone would have if they look at the proof and evidence.

Yet you've constantly said there is no proof or evidence...

What do you mean? There is evidence for the big bang. If we are talking about what happened before the big bang, there is no evidence, and thus I HAVE NO THEORY. Why should we pretend that we have knowledge when we actually know nothing?

Religion is not a school of thought, it is a school of un-thought. If you were religious, and actually spent your time thinking instead of just blindly following, I dont think youd be religious for very long.

 

I find it ridiculous and incredibly narrow-minded that you seem to have decided that every person who believes in God has blindly followed what other people are telling them, and has never thought for themselves. Thousands of the greatest scientific, artistic, and brilliant minds over the history of mankind have been religious, yet you somehow consider yourself above them intellectually simply because you're atheist?

I retract my above comment. I do not actually believe that any theist simply does not think. Thinking can happen in many ways. My above comment happened out of anger and not out of clear thinking.

Personally, I've spent the last 5 years of life constantly revisiting my religious beliefs. Constantly thinking about what is logical, and what isn't. Constantly trying to see why certain things are the way they are. They made have turned me off from organized religion in a sense but at the same time they've solidified my firm belief in a higher power.

 

And I have repeatedly tried to ask you what these things are. What events? What good has it brought?

 

What good? Seriously? Our entire legal system's origins were based on the laws of the church

Based on the laws of the church. This DOES NOT mean that these laws came about due to THE PRINCIPLE of religion (that is, the irrational, blind belief in something)

- even if God doesn't exist(as you claim) look at the saints, people like mother Teresa, people who spent their entire lives contributing to the world in the best way possible - all of that was done due to belief in God.

And some of the most influential people of the world were also atheists. I dont think that atheism, theism, deism, or anything of the sort will directly harm someone's ability to influence the world in a positive (or negative) way.

 

The bottom line is that there is much about this world science, and pure "fact"(whatever your interpretation of that is) cannot explain, and may never be able to.

We dont just make up stuff because we are afraid we might not ever find the answer. If we did that elsewhere, things like modern medicine would be severely behind where they are right now.

In fact - I see the existance of a God as a far more logical and reasonable deduction then to say we came from nowhere. Nothing on this earth comes from nowhere as we currently know it, why should our origins be any different?

 

Again, I don't think we came from nowhere, I just think that we have no right to comment on where the big bang originated because theres no evidence.

But my point is that there is nothing particular about the god theory. Suppose, for instance, it became largely popular to think that the universe is a computer simulation. (and suppose this theory becomes as popular as religion) However, there was not a shred of viable evidence that supports the theory. This "virtual reality theory" would become the new "religion" and "atheists" would be against that "theory." What I am saying is that atheists do not deny god based on principle alone. If we live in a universe where god freely interacted with us (like, stuck giant hands down out of the sky and took us around to explore the universe) then atheists would not be people who sit around and reject his existence. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the particular theory of god, an atheist would reject any theory for which there is no evidence.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of atheism, but by definition the principle is irrelevant - an atheist does not believe in God regardless of whatever evidence there may be to the contrary.

What do you mean? There is evidence for the big bang. If we are talking about what happened before the big bang, there is no evidence, and thus I HAVE NO THEORY. Why should we pretend that we have knowledge when we actually know nothing?

 

There may be evidence for the big bang(I won't claim to be knowledgeable about the subject) but realistically it doesn't answer the ultimate question - it still requires an inciting incident - so really the big bang is one step towards an answer, but not a solution by any means.

 

Based on the laws of the church. This DOES NOT mean that these laws came about due to THE PRINCIPLE of religion (that is, the irrational, blind belief in something)

Which is irrelevant. The laws of the Church were based on a principle of religion - getting to heaven - and as a result contributed enormously to society.

And some of the most influential people of the world were also atheists. I dont think that atheism, theism, deism, or anything of the sort will directly harm someone's ability to influence the world in a positive (or negative) way.

 

Which is completely true; however it doesn't change the fact that many who do good do it as a result of their faith.

 

We dont just make up stuff because we are afraid we might not ever find the answer. If we did that elsewhere, things like modern medicine would be severely behind where they are right now.

 

Agreed - however we can make theories(as we did with the Big Bang) to fill in the gap.

Scientifically, there's little evidence of God. Logically, I disagree, thus I theorize that the probability of God's existence is reasonable.

 

Again, I don't think we came from nowhere, I just think that we have no right to comment on where the big bang originated because theres no evidence.

 

Which is a personal preference.

 

Perhaps that's your interpretation of atheism, but by definition the principle is irrelevant - an atheist does not believe in God regardless of whatever evidence there may be to the contrary.

It is not my interpretation of atheism. It is what any leading atheists believe. The misconception that atheist have a firm, immovable disbelief in god comes from religious people who have had their biased influence on what public opinion should be of atheism. One of the most prominent atheists in the world, Richard Dawkins, in his one book has a chapter titles "Why there almost certainly is no god". No atheist who is using proper reasoning would say that he has a firm belief that god is impossible, rather that he does not believe in god simply because there is not evidence. It is not a disbelief in god based on principle.

There may be evidence for the big bang(I won't claim to be knowledgeable about the subject) but realistically it doesn't answer the ultimate question - it still requires an inciting incident - so really the big bang is one step towards an answer, but not a solution by any means.

What you say is true, but we should stop at that true statement. God is used as an illogical attempt at a solution, when we have no evidence to form a logical solution. Also, further, god doesn't solve the problem either. Where did he come from? If he didnt come from anywhere, then why would the universe need to come from anywhere? If a super intelligent being can exist without a creator, why couldn't a tiny little singularity exist in a vast space of nothingness without a creator?

 

Which is irrelevant. The laws of the Church were based on a principle of religion - getting to heaven - and as a result contributed enormously to society.

It still is not a cause and effect relationship. If these people acted in the name of the "virtual reality" principle then you could say the same thing about them. If they acted on the flying sphatteti monster, you could say the same thing about him. It is by sheer accident that these people alligned themselves with the thought of an intelligent man creating the universe. They could've alligned themselves with an infinite number of different theories about why it is right to be good.

Which is completely true; however it doesn't change the fact that many who do good do it as a result of their faith.

And if somebody saved your life in the name of the flying-butt-unicorn, would that make you respect the theory of the flying-butt-unicorn?

 

Agreed - however we can make theories(as we did with the Big Bang) to fill in the gap.

Scientifically, there's little evidence of God. Logically, I disagree, thus I theorize that the probability of God's existence is reasonable.

So then, logically, what reason is there to perfer "God" instead of the theory of being asleep in a virtual reality machine that will show no evidence of its existence?

 

Which is a personal preference.

Was it a personal preference on whether the workings of the human heart were magical or scientific? Is it a personal preference whether getting sick is a cause of magic vs. something real that we can manipulate?

 

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it makes sense to have a "personal preference" on whether magic caused it or whether something natural caused it. If you have children, imagine that they are watching a pendulum swing back and forth. Do you want them to learn about how it works, or would you rather them just "believe" that pendulum fairies make pendulums swing? And what about yourself? When you see two magnets pulled together, do you assume that some type of ghost is in the room holding the objects together? Or do you think that a natural cause is more likely?

 

There are a million things about our world that we would not be able to understand, yet we don't use a supernatural entity to explain them. We didn't understand how an elementary particle can be "somewhere" yet "nowhere" at the same time, but we did not say "Oh there must be a spirit that randomly decides where the electrons must be"

 

So why is it that only for the origin of things, is it "okay" to believe that some type of supernatural thing caused it? If it was literally any other phenomenon in the world, we expect there to be a science behind it. Yet for where things come from, a MAJORITY just randomly decide that it is okay to "believe" or "perfer" theories. Well I'll tell you what, I don't freaking "perfer" the explanations of quantum theory, in fact theyre quite ridiculous. But it predicts what happens in the world, and it allows us to advance in technology.

 

Proof for evolution lies in the fact that one trusts a bunch of theoreticians and scientists. You did not unearth any fossils. Your proof lies in the fact that you trust the reasoning of other people. Atheism is a result of believing in evolution.

 

actually evolution is supported by data acheived from experiments, experiments that you can repeat if you have the resources

 

such as this

It is not my interpretation of atheism. It is what any leading atheists believe. The misconception that atheist have a firm, immovable disbelief in god comes from religious people who have had their biased influence on what public opinion should be of atheism. One of the most prominent atheists in the world, Richard Dawkins, in his one book has a chapter titles "Why there almost certainly is no god". No atheist who is using proper reasoning would say that he has a firm belief that god is impossible, rather that he does not believe in god simply because there is not evidence. It is not a disbelief in god based on principle.

Fair enough.

 

What you say is true, but we should stop at that true statement. God is used as an illogical attempt at a solution, when we have no evidence to form a logical solution. Also, further, god doesn't solve the problem either. Where did he come from? If he didnt come from anywhere, then why would the universe need to come from anywhere? If a super intelligent being can exist without a creator, why couldn't a tiny little singularity exist in a vast space of nothingness without a creator?

 

Because this defies our logic - that alone is indication that the human mind cannot comprehend the origins of the universe - thus it must have originated from a higher power whose logic is so above ours that something can come from nothing.

 

It still is not a cause and effect relationship. If these people acted in the name of the "virtual reality" principle then you could say the same thing about them. If they acted on the flying sphatteti monster, you could say the same thing about him. It is by sheer accident that these people alligned themselves with the thought of an intelligent man creating the universe. They could've alligned themselves with an infinite number of different theories about why it is right to be good.

 

Exactly - yet this particular thing they've aligned themselves with has still done an enormous amount of good.

 

And if somebody saved your life in the name of the flying-butt-unicorn, would that make you respect the theory of the flying-butt-unicorn?

 

It wouldn't make me respect the theory, but it would certainly make me respect those who believe in it as good people.

 

So then, logically, what reason is there to perfer "God" instead of the theory of being asleep in a virtual reality machine that will show no evidence of its existence?

 

To be honest(and I'm sure you'll think I've no evidence) but to make a logical argument would take far more time than I have at the moment, and is for a different thread.

 

Was it a personal preference on whether the workings of the human heart were magical or scientific? Is it a personal preference whether getting sick is a cause of magic vs. something real that we can manipulate?

 

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it makes sense to have a "personal preference" on whether magic caused it or whether something natural caused it. If you have children, imagine that they are watching a pendulum swing back and forth. Do you want them to learn about how it works, or would you rather them just "believe" that pendulum fairies make pendulums swing? And what about yourself? When you see two magnets pulled together, do you assume that some type of ghost is in the room holding the objects together? Or do you think that a natural cause is more likely?

 

There are a million things about our world that we would not be able to understand, yet we don't use a supernatural entity to explain them. We didn't understand how an elementary particle can be "somewhere" yet "nowhere" at the same time, but we did not say "Oh there must be a spirit that randomly decides where the electrons must be"

 

So why is it that only for the origin of things, is it "okay" to believe that some type of supernatural thing caused it? If it was literally any other phenomenon in the world, we expect there to be a science behind it. Yet for where things come from, a MAJORITY just randomly decide that it is okay to "believe" or "perfer" theories. Well I'll tell you what, I don't freaking "perfer" the explanations of quantum theory, in fact theyre quite ridiculous. But it predicts what happens in the world, and it allows us to advance in technology.

 

Personal preference has nothing to do with fact - but personal preference ties in with faith, that is the belief in something without concrete evidence. All the examples you've given have facts associated with them, yet the existence of a God does not - therefore I personally prefer to believe in something rather than nothing.

 

You can certainly theorize about things. The thing is, a god has never been observed in science. Usually if we can't prove something we assume its not correct. But how would you prove something that controls every bit of matter and antimatter? Everything we know could be proven 99.999...% correct but we would never be able to prove a god exists on the assumption that it has control over all of existence. No one has ever seen a unicorn, we can say that it does not exist because our definition of a unicorn is of an animal, not of an all knowing being that controls everything.

Someone could argue you that god caused the big bang and they have a 50% chance of being right.

 

Then you have a 50% vs 50% debate with no substance and all personal opinion.

 

And how about the invisible asteroid? Also the asteroid can only collide with Earth objects. And the asteroid is undetectable by any other means. Therefore, according to your 50-50 logic, there is a 50-50 chance of an asteroid coming to hit your town tomorrow...oh wait, I made the theory up yesterday. That means theres a 50% chance of it coming today! Run away!

 

Just because something is unprovable does not give it a 50% chance of being correct. Also, what the hell? What about all of the other theories for why the universe exists? What if "universes" are the brains of an enormous lifeform. The stars are the brain cells. What if the universe as we see it is actually a computer simulation? Now we are up to 4 theories and since each theory is equally probable (according to your logic) that means that now there is only a 25% chance that God believers are correct. If I came up with 6 more theories, they would all have to be equiprobable (by your logic, not mine), and then each of us only has a 10% chance of being right. There are an infinite number of theories possible for what the universe is, which would mean that there is now a 1 in ininifty chance that either of us is correct, which means then that we both have a 0% chance of being right. (again this is only using your logic that each theory for the origin of the universe is equiprobable)

 

 

 

Its 50-50 when your arguing between two different theories that we don't have proof for or against. The strength and weakness of science is that in science, in order for something to be true, proof needs to be provided. The concept of an all knowing and all controlling (directly or indirectly) being can not be proven( unless one decided to show himself as proof). Does that mean it does not exists? From a scientific point of view, yes. But science is not compatible with religion. Religion is faith, science is about facts that can be observed or theorized about. You can not logically use science to argue about religion.

 

Because this defies our logic - that alone is indication that the human mind cannot comprehend the origins of the universe - thus it must have originated from a higher power whose logic is so above ours that something can come from nothing.

 

 

if the logic that something must come from something else can be violated then the logic that something has to be of a' higher' power than what it creates can also be violated, therefore a 'lower' power can be capable of creating a 'higher' power.

 

Because this defies our logic - that alone is indication that the human mind cannot comprehend the origins of the universe - thus it must have originated from a higher power whose logic is so above ours that something can come from nothing.

 

 

if the logic that something must come from something else can be violated then the logic that something has to be of a' higher' power than what it creates can also be violated, therefore a 'lower' power can be capable of creating a 'higher' power.

Hence the theory that God is not a "power" whatsoever - and then you get into the "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?".