religion

[obfuscator]

I quite clearly made a post detailing one flaw and providing reading material that goes over others in great detail. Forgive me for not wanting to waste hours of my time restating what others have done far better than I, especially for someone who obviously has no interest in actually having an intellectual conversation.

[Da_Latios]

I quite clearly made a post detailing one flaw and providing reading material that goes over others in great detail. Forgive me for not wanting to waste hours of my time restating what others have done far better than I, especially for someone who obviously has no interest in actually having an intellectual conversation.

All your arguments make the assumption that atheism is a belief system; that there is a doctrine.

I don't think you have any idea what atheism is, and you say I'm the one who doesn't want to debate? You don't even know what you're trying to debate against.

 

Atheists like to use the thought of "unbridled sexual experience" as a draw towards losing the "shackles" imposed by the church (and religion as a whole). They like to paint a picture of a world where our sexual desires transcend all else and restrictions on such would be nonexistent. They say that the current attitude of the church is fruitless and old fashioned, and unnecessarily restrictive. They say "we should try the atheist way".

Invalid argument; atheism has no doctrine.

 

And this brings us to why Athiests run the risk of losing among this younger generation when You talk about sex the way new Atheists all have so far: because everybody on the godless team writes about sex and freedom from the religious moral rules as if all the years from 1960 on never even existed. As if the sexual revolution hadn't been staggering along for nearly a half century now! Hello? Well, for better or worse from the point of view of our side, it has. And what that means is that all kinds of people now know that if we try to make a selling point out of trashing Christian sexual morality - as Atheists have been doing since the beginning - a whole lot of Dulls(sic: christians) today are going to raise their hands and call us losers on the subject of sex and say that we don't know what you're talking about. So it this letter i'd like to draw your attention to just some of the legacy of the Sexual revolution, in the hopes of making our movement less vulnerable to the unfortunate facts.

Invalid point; atheism has no doctrine.

 

And if the campuses don't do it for you, take a look at what secular sex is doing in post-Christan western Europe! Pornography is everywhere, over-the-counter medicines for STD's are front and center in every convenience store, red-light districts showcase poorer and younger people (mostly from the East) being paid for every possible combination of sex by richer and older people (mostly from the West), the age of consent keeps getting pushed lower - and marriage and children and families are disappearing

This is so [developmentally delayed]ed that I seriously wonder if the author isn't actually a Chihuahua.

 

over-the-counter medicines for STD's are front and center in every convenience store

This is a bad thing?

 

take a look at what secular sex is doing in post-Christan western Europe!

Please, he makes an assertion without even attempting to make a connection between secularism and prostitution. I'd point out all those mega-church pastors who were paying for buttsex *cough*TED HAGGARD*cough* but I suppose they aren't "real Christians". Or how about the nearly 5% of all Catholic clergymen who have raped and molested children, which the Catholic church covered up. Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS!

 

Really, you have absolutely no idea what you're trying to debate. Stop acting like a damn child, you ignorant ass.

[obfuscator]

And the personal attacks begin. Lovely. However, since you've at least made some half-hearted effort to actually say something rather than engage in mindless trolling I'll do you the favour of attempting to respond properly.

 

]All your arguments make the assumption that atheism is a belief system; that there is a doctrine.

I don't think you have any idea what atheism is, and you say I'm the one who doesn't want to debate? You don't even know what you're trying to debate against.

 

Atheism is not a "belief system" like religion is belief system per se, it's more of a non-belief system. The point is not that atheists uniformly beleive that unbridled sexual experiences are the way to go, it's that this is often a logical step when the "restrictive controls" put in place by religion are taken away, as atheism does.

 

Invalid argument; atheism has no doctrine.

 

Have you ever actually read any book or other literature written by an atheist? This is a consistent argument made by many leading atheist writers.

 

invalid argument; atheism has no doctrine.

 

Same point as above, although the answer is pretty obvious to me at this stage.

 

And if the campuses don't do it for you, take a look at what secular sex is doing in post-Christan western Europe! Pornography is everywhere, over-the-counter medicines for STD's are front and center in every convenience store, red-light districts showcase poorer and younger people (mostly from the East) being paid for every possible combination of sex by richer and older people (mostly from the West), the age of consent keeps getting pushed lower - and marriage and children and families are disappearing

This is so [developmentally delayed]ed that I seriously wonder if the author isn't actually a Chihuahua.

 

When you don't have a counter-argument, personal attacks are the way to go, right. What part of it is [developmentally delayed]ed?

 

Is pornography not everywhere? Even attempting to say this is false would show a level of ignorance I've yet to see on these forums.

Are over the counter medicines for std's everywhere?(implying std's are increasingly prevalent in society)? Same as above.

Is prostitution not also prevalent in western society? Are many of these people not drug added immigrants? Are most users of prostitutes not better off than the prostitutes themselves?

Is the age of consent not getting lower?

Are marriage and families not disappearing(high divorce rates, low birth rates)?

 

over-the-counter medicines for STD's are front and center in every convenience store

This is a bad thing?

 

It's a great thing that medication for a disease is readily available. The bad thing is that the diseases are now so prevalent that convenience stores carry medication for them.

 

Please, he makes an assertion without even attempting to make a connection between secularism and prostitution. I'd point out all those mega-church pastors who were paying for buttsex *cough*TED HAGGARD*cough* but I suppose they aren't "real Christians". Or how about the nearly 5% of all Catholic clergymen who have raped and molested children, which the Catholic church covered up. Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS!

 

Where did I say you should blame athiests for the problems with the church?

If you knew one iota of religious doctrine you'd realize that, hey, guess what? It's immoral to rape and molest children, or use prostitutes. Yep, basically those clergy members are going to hell because their actions directly contradict the teachings of the church.

But of course, they (the small number it is) only rape children because they're catholic, right?

 

And I'll ignore your last sentence.

[sees_all1]

@Y_Guy: Atheism has no doctrine; you have failed.

 

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic.

 

And they say the religious are closed-minded.

Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.

I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one.

 

I've shown you a "flaw" in math and science, which is the same "flaw" for religion.

Math can't prove that one does not equal zero, religion can't prove that a higher being exists.

 

Math and science can't show everything you want to know about the Universe (like how it came to be), while religion can. However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God.

[Da_Latios]

@Y_Guy: Atheism has no doctrine; you have failed.

 

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic.

 

And they say the religious are closed-minded.

Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.

I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one.

 

I've shown you a "flaw" in math and science, which is the same "flaw" for religion.

Math can't prove that one does not equal zero, religion can't prove that a higher being exists.

 

Math and science can't show everything you want to know about the Universe (like how it came to be), while religion can. However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God.

Look, nobody cares about your "flaws of maths and science" right now; that's not what we're talking about.

 

However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God.

Duh, there are so many gods and so many religions. What were you even trying to prove?

 

Y_Guy:

 

The point is not that atheists uniformly beleive that unbridled sexual experiences are the way to go

Says who? You can be an atheist and still believe in sex after marriage, marriage between a woman and a man only etc.

 

Have you ever actually read any book or other literature written by an atheist? This is a consistent argument made by many leading atheist writers.

Yes, arguments made by atheist authors seem to be somewhat consistent with each other.

In other news, there's only a limited amount of doctrines within religions, which lead to a limited number of possible arguments. Your ignorance astounds me.

 

Where did I say you should blame athiests for the problems with the church?

Huh? Blaming atheists for problems in the church? What the hell are you on about?

 

But of course, they (the small number it is) only rapes children because they're catholic, right?

Dude, celibacy. It's a Catholic thing. Come one, at least TRY to follow along here.

 

I'll assert again that you really don't seem to know what atheism is. You keep trying to give atheism a doctrine, or a unified set of beliefs, when there aren't any. Stop it. You're just making yourself look dumb.

[obfuscator]

Says who? You can be an atheist and still believe in sex after marriage, marriage between a woman and a man only etc.

 

Oh yes? So you believe sex before marriage is immoral? You believe gay marriage is immoral?

 

Yes, arguments made by atheist authors seem to be somewhat consistent with each other.

In other news, there's only a limited amount of doctrines within religions, which lead to a limited number of possible arguments. Your ignorance astounds me.

 

If, as you claim, you'd actually read any atheist literature you'd see that practically all of it condones releasing the "sexual shackles imposed by religion". Thus, an increased atheism releases such and the logical consequences are what I described.

 

Huh? Blaming atheists for problems in the church? What the hell are you on about?

 

Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS!

 

Dude, celibacy. It's a Catholic thing. Come one, at least TRY to follow along here.

 

So you chose to take an example from the 1% of priests who are not successful with celibacy and ignore the 99% that are? Ok.

 

I'll assert again that you really don't seem to know what atheism is. You keep trying to give atheism a doctrine, or a unified set of beliefs, when there aren't any. Stop it. You're just making yourself look dumb.

 

I'm not trying to give atheism a doctrine at all. Atheism is simply one core belief - "God does not exist", just as religion is one core belief "God exists".

 

I'm trying to show a logical connection between what happens when you believe something and when you don't.

[sees_all1]

Look, nobody cares about your "flaws of maths and science" right now; that's not what we're talking about.

 

However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God.

Duh, there are so many gods and so many religions. What were you even trying to prove?

The point I've made is very simple, yet you don't seem to understand it, or even make an attempt to understand it.

 

You'll find that most of us, when we try to debate something, try our darned hardest to understand the points the other side make, find the validity or the flaws in them, and respond appropriately with respect (which by the way, does not include name calling or insults). Sometimes we'll come to a consensus, other times we'll respectfully disagree. You haven't shown the capacity to do either.

 

 

You've tried my patience, so you'll get it no more. When you show you can discuss and debate, I'll respond. Until then, enjoy being by your lonesome self.

[Da_Latios]

Oh yes? So you beleive sex before marriage is immoral? You beleive gay marriage is immoral?

No, but good luck trying to make a direct link between that and the statement, "I do not believe in a god or gods."

 

If, as you claim, you'd actually read any atheist literature you'd see that practically all of it condones releasing the "sexual shackles imposed by religion". Thus, an increased atheism releases such and the logical consequences are what I described.

This is my face IRL: -.-

I mean COME ON! Many atheists also happen to be humanists? Wow! I guess there aren't any religious humanists!

 

You quoted:

Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS!

I think subtlety is wasted on you. Since your quotes claimed religious moral superiority, I pointed out a case where religious leaders followed very immoral practices, and my reply was to suggest the immoral clergy were atheists... ugh. My reply was structured like a joke. Cleatly, you didn't "get it."

 

So you chose to take an example from the 1% of priests who are not successful with celibacy and ignore the 99% that are? Ok.

Firstly, it's 5% (http://coloradoindependent.com/39228/vatican-defense-%E2%80%98only-5%E2%80%99-of-clergy-sex-abusers-and-most-of-those-gay).

Secondly, really? I mean, seriously? I was convinced of your stupidity but now... well, perhaps it's more than that.

You're like a serial killer at a murder trial saying, "Oh, I knew you would bring up THAT murder, and THAT murder, and THAT murder... why don't you ever bring up the fact that I send my father a birthday card every year?"

Or, another analogy: If you found a little dung on your piece of chocolate, would you still eat it?

 

Atheism is simply one core belief - "God does not exist

No. It is not. Clearly all this time you've been confused as to what atheism is.

Atheism is saying, "I do not believe a god or gods exist." NOT as you put it, "God does not exist."

Those two are VERY different. Read: VERY DIFFERENT. The latter is a belief, in such a way collecting stamps is a hobby. The former is a lack of belief, NOT A BELIEF, in the way not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby.

 

sees_all1: I've already been convinced you're a troll, so if you're going to stop replying, that's a dream come true. Thank you.

[obfuscator]

No, but good luck trying to make a direct link between that and the statement, "I do not believe in a god or gods."

 

Well, I've already done so, specifically on abortion and gay marriage threads. However, if you beleive in God, you likely follow some sort of religion. Almost all religions have some sort of restriction on what is sexually "moral". If you are not a member of a religion and do not believe in God it stands to reason that such moral restrictions will not come from religion at least.

 

Find me an atheist who believes gay marriage, sex before marriage, and contraception are morally wrong, and I'll be fascinated to talk to them. Oddly enough, you've already disqualified yourself as such a candidate...

 

This is my face IRL: -.-

I mean COME ON! Many atheists also happen to be humanists? Wow! I guess there aren't any religious humanists!

 

I never said anything about humanism - and I am also quite aware that there are many atheist humanists. See my point above.

 

 

I think subtlety is wasted on you. Since your quotes claimed religious moral superiority, I pointed out a case where religious leaders followed very immoral practices, and my reply was to suggest the immoral clergy were atheists... ugh. My reply was structured like a joke. Cleatly, you didn't "get it."

 

It was structured like a joke, and I didn't find it funny.

 

Indeed, some religious leaders and members have followed very immoral practices. I've yet to see you prove this is as a result of their religion. Indeed, I think atheists are just as likely to be immoral as religious are, if not more so.

 

Firstly, it's 5% (http://coloradoindependent.com/39228/vatican-defense-%E2%80%98only-5%E2%80%99-of-clergy-sex-abusers-and-most-of-those-gay).

Secondly, really? I mean, seriously? I was convinced of your stupidity but now... well, perhaps it's more than that.

You're like a serial killer at a murder trial saying, "Oh, I knew you would bring up THAT murder, and THAT murder, and THAT murder... why don't you ever bring up the fact that I send my father a birthday card every year?"

Or, another analogy: If you found a little dung on your piece of chocolate, would you still eat it?

 

"Up to 5% have been involved in abuse." My point is that no matter how you swing it, 5% is not even close to being representative of the whole. That's identical to stereotyping ethnic groups as criminals because a minuscule percentile are.

 

I also wonder what the percentage of the general public who've perpetrated sexual abuse is.

 

 

No. It is not. Clearly all this time you've been confused as to what atheism is.

Atheism is saying, "I do not believe a god or gods exist." NOT as you put it, "God does not exist."

Those two are VERY different. Read: VERY DIFFERENT. The latter is a belief, in such a way collecting stamps is a hobby. The former is a lack of belief, NOT A BELIEF, in the way not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby.

 

Ok. And religion is "I do not believe a god or gods does not exist". It's a play on words.

 

But I think I'm actually going to leave things here. You've shown time and time again despite the numerous chances I've given you that you've no interest whatsoever in debating like a mature adult, and I really have better things to do.

[Da_Latios]

*sigh* I'm really, really tired of your ignorance, your absolute lack of ability to understand what it is you're trying to debate, and your childish "you're not debating properly!" remarks. I don't give a damn whether or not I'm debating "properly". I care about the truth. I care about humanity. I care about the universe and I certainly don't care about your cry-baby remarks. I know I'm being an [wagon], but don't use that to weasel your way out of this. You've failed to show even one flaw in atheism, having claimed there are many.

You've failed to identify what atheism is. You've failed at...

 

It was structured like a joke, and I didn't find it funny.

Lol. Come on. Really?

 

I think atheists are just as likely to be immoral as religious are, if not more so.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

"Up to 5% have been involved in abuse." My point is that no matter how you swing it, 5% is not even close to being representative of the whole. That's identical to stereotyping ethnic groups as criminals because a minuscule percentile are.

I am currently hitting my head with both hands, trying to un-read the stupid.

 

Ok. And religion is "I do not believe a god or gods does not exist". It's a play on words.

fsgdfslfaskdf'sdfweiufJF;lkf;safas;falskdfjalsdkjflkj;sa;fkl oiuruljkbh jkjkjklmk

 

But I think I'm actually going to leave things here. You've shown time and time again despite the numerous chances I've given you that you've no interest whatsoever in debating like a mature adult, and I really have better things to do.

Like I said further up, I don't care to debate. I just enjoy tearing apart your half-assed "arguments" which you've clearly sleep-typed. I don't care if I'm being an [wagon], because that doesn't make me any less right. It just makes me less desirable to talk to, and I don't give a damn about that. At the end of the day, all your arguments have amounted to... nothing. You've still not provided a flaw with atheism, nobody has given a reason that one should believe in a god or gods, sees_all1's arguments are still completely irrelevant, and you still have no idea what the hell you're on about.

 

From what I've gathered in this thread:

>If there was evidence of a god, then it wouldn't be faith.

But why would a god require faith?

>Science can't be proven, or something like that.

sees_all1, you're really annoying. Your "arguments" are completely irrelevant and, even though I've pointed that out to you... time and time again... you keep bring it up. Stop it. I can't believe anyone would even try to use those arguments.

 

There is so much wrong with religion, and since I'm more familiar with the Christian religion. I will use it as the prime example.

>Why does Yahweh demand faith, and worship?

>Adam and Eve: The incest story. I mean come on.

>Adam and Eve were kicked out for wanting to know the difference between good and evil, but didn't know the difference between good and evil yet? Then how were they to know the snake was "evil" and God was "good"? They wanted knowledge. Christianity begins by telling us that humanity was banished from paradise for wanting to know more.

>Why is homosexuality wrong? Other than "The bible says so." Where is the reasoning for this?

>God kills 42 children for calling Elisha bald(Kings 2:23-24). This is your idea of a moral god?

>There is so much pain and suffering in the world; children in third-world countries who will never live past the age of 5. Don't worry though, God is loving and watches over each of us.

>God is "jealous". This is a petty human emotion and definitely not an attribute of a supreme being.

>God has 'rules' which he's not supposed to break. Well, if you're not allowed to do anything, just [bleep] off.

>Why was a boat necessary in the story of Noah's ark? And why floods? Why drown everyone? Couldn't He have just made all the "evil" people disappear? Surely that would have been far less messy. And what did all the animals do to deserve death? Some people on this thread have claimed dolphins and certain monkeys can show empathy.

>"...I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."(Matt 17:20) Where are all the dancing mountains?

>Mark 11:12-14 "The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.' And his disciples heard him say it." Jesus was mad at a fig tree for not having fruit on it, so he basically killed it? (other versions say the tree withered and died)

>In the story of the Hebrew slaves fleeing from Egypt, why did Adonai wait until the Egyptians were in the Red Sea before closing the waters, killing them all? This was an unnecessary massacre. And why didn't God just, you know, teleport the Hebrews to the other side of the sea? This Biblical God seems to be all show-off and not enough efficiency.

>There is no mention of an afterlife, or a hell, until the New Testament. Why?

>Why does God have a "chosen people"?

>Are there other life forms in the universe? Are they made by God? If so, are they sinless? Why? If our light or radio waves can reach them, why not Satan?

>My (former) pastor told me that Lucifer is not beyond redemption. He's supposed to be an angel; surely he can;t be holding a 4 billion year old grudge?

>Lucifer managed to persuade 1/3 of all the angels in heaven to join him rather than God. Guess God wasn't all too convincing.

>In Genesis, God had to ask Cain where Abel was. I think this speaks for itself.

>In Genesis, God gives Cain a "mark" saying that anyone who comes across him will kill him. However, later on it's revealed he has is own damn city.

 

These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. It's almost 4am and I need sleep. I'll find more to post tomorrow, and try to include verses along with them.

[obfuscator]

I quite clearly made a post detailing one flaw and providing reading material that goes over others in great detail. Forgive me for not wanting to waste hours of my time restating what others have done far better than I, especially for someone who obviously has no interest in actually having an intellectual conversation.

 

I would like to point out that while I havent commented on your points (until now I guess) they havent been very relevent to the "intellectual conversation" of disproving atheism that I thought you were having.

 

The only way to disprove atheism which means the belief there can be no God, is to prove that there IS or at least could-be a God. There is no atheist doctrine to disprove, there is no need to discuss morality, all you need to do is state why there is a God, or at least why there could be a God (going further to say that it would be more logical for God to exist because "_____" rather then saying "WELL YOU CANT DISPROVE THERE IS ONE TROLLOLOLOLOLOL")

 

Again I am not involved but if you want to get anywhere with an atheist you have to argue on their terms with logic. An atheist always argues on christians terms, often quoting bible verses that are contradictions, or other logical reasons why they would feel christianity doesnt have much of a base to it.

 

Atheism isn't something you can "disprove". Nor is religion. I'm not and have not attempted to show that atheism is a completely baseless theory - I merely intented to point out that, like religion, it is not perfect.

 

An atheist always argues on christian terms? That's quite the broad statement, particularly considering the fact that we've just seen an instance of an atheist posting basically an "I'm right, you're wrong and an idiot".

 

There are many flaws with atheism - but as I've reiterated many times in order for this subject to be properly explored you really need to dedicate a book length to it. I linked to several well written pieces on atheism that show some of it's inherent flaws.

 

I know your previous post wasn't directly relating to me but personally I've never claimed or even thought that I "know" God exists. I don't think it is anything that anyone "knows", or doesn't "know". It makes more sense to me that the world we live in have some kind of creative spark than it were just completely random.

[obfuscator]

 

What is wrong with the flaw you are discussing with the belief that the universe came about, likely by means people dont yet understand, as did life, however just because humans dont understand how it all came about doesnt mean that it necessarily took a God to create it.

 

Absolutely agreed. However, it also doesn't mean that it didn't necessarily take a God to create it.

 

I'm not claiming Christianity is inherently right with its views of how the world came to be. You choose to believe that the official scientific explanation that it randomly came from nowhere is more plausible. I choose to believe that the universe having a creator is more plausible. Neither can be definitively proven wrong, it's just personal choice.

 

In this, of course, I leave aside many other relevant arguments, mainly "is the world better off with religion or without?".

[sees_all1]

What is wrong with the flaw you are discussing with the belief that the universe came about, likely by means people dont yet understand, as did life, however just because humans dont understand how it all came about doesnt mean that it necessarily took a God to create it.

 

At its core thats what an athiest believes, I dont care to dig through old posts, can you just tell me what would be wrong with that statement?

I see that statement as, "We don't have a better explanation, but when we get one we'll believe it." Alright, that's fine as it is, but I see far too many atheists that are condescending to people who already have a belief, especially the atheists with a view that is more or less "You're wrong until you can prove it with absolute certainty."

They hold that latter view on religion, but hold the ideas and theories from math and science above all else. As I've shown, there are aspects of math (and by extension science) that cannot be proved or disproved, which make them very similar to religion.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

What is wrong with the flaw you are discussing with the belief that the universe came about, likely by means people dont yet understand, as did life, however just because humans dont understand how it all came about doesnt mean that it necessarily took a God to create it.

 

Absolutely agreed. However, it also doesn't mean that it didn't necessarily take a God to create it.

 

I'm not claiming Christianity is inherently right with its views of how the world came to be. You choose to believe that the official scientific explanation that it randomly came from nowhere is more plausible.

 

You have a huge problem understanding the difference between something having a view on something or something not making any claims.

 

All that is currently "accepted" as scientific theory is the "big bang" during the first moments of our universe. What does science claim as truth for what happened BEFORE then? NOTHING. The scientific claim isn't "The universe randomly came from nowhere." The scientific claim is...well...nothing really. Science does not comment on things which it does not understand. Right now, as far as what is concidered to be "before the big bang", science says "We don't have enough evidence yet to make a claim."

 

There is no claim. Just like how atheism has "no claim" when it comes to morals. The only thing that an atheist is is a person who doesn't buy into the "god theory" due to a lack of evidence.

 

Science DOESNT KNOW what happened before the big bang. And just like other things we dont know -- we don't pretend to know either. Yes, it is a very interesting question to know where we came from, but that doesn't mean we should just start making up stories.

 

There are plenty of questions that we don't know the answer to. How do we cure AIDS? How can we make inter-solar travel feasible for humans? How are we going to sustain our society once fossil fuels are depleted?

 

These are all excellent, important, and interesting questions. But, do we run around saying "I think GOD will cure AIDS!" or "I think our answer to the energy crisis will come to me in a message from beyond!" No. We just say "...boy...I dont know! Guess we better try to figure it out."

 

Atheists approach the creation question just like...well...just like everybody else approaches every other question that we try to answer about the physical world. With science.

 

I choose to believe that the universe having a creator is more plausible. Neither can be definitively proven wrong, it's just personal choice.

 

Again just because a guess cannot be proven wrong doesn't mean it is a useful guess for factual information. I could say "I think the Earth orbits the Sun because a large invisible man lives inside the sun and he is controlling the Earth with undetectable psychic powers" This cannot be proven wrong. Should we add this claim to our current understanding of why the Earth orbits the Sun?

In this, of course, I leave aside many other relevant arguments, mainly "is the world better off with religion or without?".

 

How can you even know what the world would be like if religion hadn't developed? You can't answer this question.

 

Maybe if religion had never developed, people would turn to philosophy to answer the question of "Why should I _______ ?" Maybe schools of philosophy would be open all around the world to take the place of churches. To me, this system would be a lot better, because people might end up developing all of religion's good things without developing the bad.

[Myweponsg00d]

I see that statement as, "We don't have a better explanation, but when we get one we'll believe it." Alright, that's fine as it is, but I see far too many atheists that are condescending to people who already have a belief, especially the atheists with a view that is more or less "You're wrong until you can prove it with absolute certainty."

They hold that latter view on religion, but hold the ideas and theories from math and science above all else. As I've shown, there are aspects of math (and by extension science) that cannot be proved or disproved, which make them very similar to religion.

 

I absolutely cannot believe that we are back at this again.

 

Do you want me to shoot you in the head? Do you? No. You don't. Why? Because you think a bullet will come out, enter your skull, and kill you. THIS IS NOT A FACT. The only time it would become a fact is once it has already happened. Before I shoot you, you do not have PROOF that you WILL get shot. It is impossible to PROVE that any future events will ever happen.

 

So...you could make another "guess" at what might happen. Maybe you assume that when I shoot you in the head, the bullet will never enter your head, but instead it will transform into a horse and a carriage and carry you off into the sunset to unite you with the love of your life.

 

Here are the two predictions: 1.) The bullet will come out and kill you 2.) The bullet will unite you with the love of your life.

 

Both predictions require assumptions that cannot be proven. You're telling me that either prediction is equally respectable?

[sees_all1]

Do you want me to shoot you in the head? Do you? No. You don't. Why? Because you think a bullet will come out, enter your skull, and kill you. THIS IS NOT A FACT. The only time it would become a fact is once it has already happened. Before I shoot you, you do not have PROOF that you WILL get shot. It is impossible to PROVE that any future events will ever happen.

You're wrong though.

 

I can assign a weight assignment, statistically speaking the probability that each of the events are going to occur, and sum them.

If you hold a gun up to my head, and pull the trigger, one of several things may happen:

 

Case 1 - There is no bullet in the gun.

Case 2 - There is a bullet in the gun.

In Case 1, there is some percentage that you forgot or just didn't put a bullet in the chamber. This outcome is negative, no positive. If you pulled the trigger, I'd be freaked out and jumpy, emotionally distraught with good reason. Even if I had no emotion this case at best is neutral.

 

In Case 2, there are two more cases.

Case 2.1 - The bullet is a dud,

Case 2.2 - The bullet goes off.

I can find the probability that the bullet is a dud through repeat testing, in fact most bullets are rated this way. 2.1 is slim to none. The outcome in 2.1 is the same though as in 1, and I'd be freaked out. Negative outcome, neutral at best.

 

In Case 2.2, there are several more cases.

2.2.1 - Your aim sucks, and you miss.

2.2.2 - You shoot me.

What's the probability you miss? Don't know, but the outcome is the same as 2.1, and its Negative, neutral at best.

 

In 2.2.2, there are even more cases.

Case 2.2.2.1 - I survive with half my face being blown off

Case 2.2.2.2 - I die.

Both of those to me are negative, in the extreme.

You argue that there might be more cases, some of which are "positive," for some people. If you ask those people if they want to be shot in the head, they may say yes, but they'll have different reasons (like they're tripping on acid).

 

 

 

When you sum up the probabilities multiplied by their expected results (positive or negative), the expected result is grossly negative. You don't even have to make a guess at the probabilities for any one of those outcomes, all the expected results for each probability are negative. There is absolutely no positive for me to be shot in the head, which is why without having ANY certainty in the matter at all, I can tell you I don't want you to hold a gun to my head and shoot.

 

 

 

I don't see how that example, with a thousand or more variables, is the same saying there is no proof for the axiom against triviality. Why does it upset you that math, at it's very core, is a set of large assumptions?

[Myweponsg00d]

Do you want me to shoot you in the head? Do you? No. You don't. Why? Because you think a bullet will come out, enter your skull, and kill you. THIS IS NOT A FACT. The only time it would become a fact is once it has already happened. Before I shoot you, you do not have PROOF that you WILL get shot. It is impossible to PROVE that any future events will ever happen.

You're wrong though.

 

I can assign a weight assignment, statistically speaking the probability that each of the events are going to occur, and sum them.

If you hold a gun up to my head, and pull the trigger, one of several things may happen:

 

Case 1 - There is no bullet in the gun.

Case 2 - There is a bullet in the gun.

In Case 1, there is some percentage that you forgot or just didn't put a bullet in the chamber. This outcome is negative, no positive. If you pulled the trigger, I'd be freaked out and jumpy, emotionally distraught with good reason. Even if I had no emotion this case at best is neutral.

 

In Case 2, there are two more cases.

Case 2.1 - The bullet is a dud,

Case 2.2 - The bullet goes off.

I can find the probability that the bullet is a dud through repeat testing, in fact most bullets are rated this way. 2.1 is slim to none. The outcome in 2.1 is the same though as in 1, and I'd be freaked out. Negative outcome, neutral at best.

 

In Case 2.2, there are several more cases.

2.2.1 - Your aim sucks, and you miss.

2.2.2 - You shoot me.

What's the probability you miss? Don't know, but the outcome is the same as 2.1, and its Negative, neutral at best.

 

In 2.2.2, there are even more cases.

Case 2.2.2.1 - I survive with half my face being blown off

Case 2.2.2.2 - I die.

Both of those to me are negative, in the extreme.

You argue that there might be more cases, some of which are "positive," for some people. If you ask those people if they want to be shot in the head, they may say yes, but they'll have different reasons (like they're tripping on acid).

 

 

 

When you sum up the probabilities multiplied by their expected results (positive or negative), the expected result is grossly negative. You don't even have to make a guess at the probabilities for any one of those outcomes, all the expected results for each probability are negative. There is absolutely no positive for me to be shot in the head, which is why without having ANY certainty in the matter at all, I can tell you I don't want you to hold a gun to my head and shoot.

 

 

 

I don't see how that example, with a thousand or more variables, is the same saying there is no proof for the axiom against triviality. Why does it upset you that math, at it's very core, is a set of large assumptions?

 

I'm horribly confused. You are making your decision based on math? Probability? But that just works on a set of underlying assumptions.

 

Why wouldn't you be equally warranted in choosing to let me shoot you? All you have to do is make the assumption that a magical force in the universe will always keep you alive. Both decisions boil down to assumptions so why aren't both decisions equally plausible?

[sees_all1]

I'm horribly confused. You are making your decision based on math? Probability? But that just works on a set of underlying assumptions.

Yes it does, assumptions I cannot prove. But I believe them to be correct.

 

Why wouldn't you be equally warranted in choosing to let me shoot you? All you have to do is make the assumption that a magical force in the universe will always keep you alive. Both decisions boil down to assumptions so why aren't both decisions equally plausible?

I don't believe anyone has ever made the assumption that a magical force in the universe will always keep them alive. Its a stupid assumption, because millions of people die every day. Even in religion, death is certain.

[Myweponsg00d]

Its a stupid assumption, because millions of people die every day.

 

Who are you to call it stupid? It makes sense to me. I know in my heart that that prediction is the truth. You can't disprove me and therefore our ideas should be treated with equal warrant.

[sees_all1]

Its a stupid assumption, because millions of people die every day.

 

Who are you to call it stupid? It makes sense to me. I know in my heart that that prediction is the truth. You can't disprove me and therefore our ideas should be treated with equal warrant.

Alright, so let me point a gun to your head and shoot you. No objections?

[Myweponsg00d]

Its a stupid assumption, because millions of people die every day.

 

Who are you to call it stupid? It makes sense to me. I know in my heart that that prediction is the truth. You can't disprove me and therefore our ideas should be treated with equal warrant.

Alright, so let me point a gun to your head and shoot you. No objections?

 

This is YOUR head we are talking about. It is my belief that a gun pointed to YOUR head will not fire and kill you but instead cause you to finally find your true love. Don't bring my head into it, my head is completely different from yours.

[sees_all1]

Its a stupid assumption, because millions of people die every day.

 

Who are you to call it stupid? It makes sense to me. I know in my heart that that prediction is the truth. You can't disprove me and therefore our ideas should be treated with equal warrant.

Alright, so let me point a gun to your head and shoot you. No objections?

 

This is YOUR head we are talking about. It is my belief that a gun pointed to YOUR head will not fire and kill you but instead cause you to finally find your true love. Don't bring my head into it, my head is completely different from yours.

Because your beliefs only apply to one specific person, and not the entire population? That makes sense. :rolleyes:

You asked me why I don't want a gun pointed to my head, I answered.

You still can't prove or disprove the axiom of non-triviality, but you assume it to be correct all the same. Oh by the way, this axiom directly contradicts the idea of a big bang (making the idea much more relevant than your crazy gun hypothesis).

[Zygimantas]

 

Morals are not genetic, that's the biggest garbage I've heard today. If morals were genetic, we'd be predestined to either be moral or immoral people. Genetics can influence behavioral tendencies but nothing more.

Maybe I worded it wrong. At the core morals are naturally in us, because the ones we have now are based on survival instincts that have proved to help us survive. We are born with natural morals. Of course the basic morals can be expressed in different ways.

[Dizzle229]

THE ANSWER TO THE GREAT QUESTION

 

Is there scientific evidence to support God?

Nope.

Well there you go. Who wants cake?

[Giordano]

THE ANSWER TO THE GREAT QUESTION

 

Is there scientific evidence to support God?

Nope.

Well there you go. Who wants cake?

But dear sir/madame, I reject your scientist research and substitute it with my own. Thus I am right. Always. Hoho! Haha! Jolly good and all that.