Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

There is no God unless proven otherwise. I wish we could just leave it at that :unsure:


LOTRjokesigedition-1.png

Get back here so I can rub your butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no God unless proven otherwise. I wish we could just leave it at that :unsure:

There is no reason to believe in a god unless it's proven that one exists. There very well may be a god, but as of now there is no evidence to suggest that one exists.


TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.

 

It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief

What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > No. > Guess we're done with that, then.

Of course I wouldn't have evidence. Beyond logic means beyond evidence silly, any evidence would disprove my theory :P But of course I wouldn't go around saying it is "true".


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.

 

Well then, no human mind would be able to prove his existence with our "human" logic. That being the case, then one would have to take a leap of faith and hope there is a God, for whatever reason--be it a security blanket or a desire (be it selfish or not) to continue on to a supposed afterlife, etc.

 

And to be honest, faith is a cop out to logical thinking in my opinion, and is therefore intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely no reason to believe in God unless someone can provide me with evidence of his existence. Much of Religion seems to be too much of an emotional and sexual manipulation of the masses to ultimately make people submissive to an omnibenevloent and omniscient being--both of which are incredibly implausible when one actually reads holy texts at all (or looks at modern day atrocities and such).

 

I can't tell you how many times a Christian has told me I'm going to roast forever with Satan because I didn't believe in God. What kind of creator wants a human to not live up to its full potential? If one has logic and logic says a God doesn't exist, why must I be punished for my intellect?

 

Ultimately, pick a lottery ticket. Let's see which belief and/or non belief is the winner.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.

 

It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief

What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > No. > Guess we're done with that, then.

Of course I wouldn't have evidence. Beyond logic means beyond evidence silly, any evidence would disprove my theory :P But of course I wouldn't go around saying it is "true".

But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!".

 

Of course I wouldn't have evidence.

Well that's settled, then.


TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!".

Of course. Because that's using your logic to think about him being beyond logic. Some eastern mystics say "Be still and know", and by that they mean be still physically and mentally. There is no effort, or thinking required to "know" god. But this is not referencing to knowing god as a separate entity or with any characteristics, because god is beyond logic.


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!".

Of course. Because that's using your logic to think about him being beyond logic. Some eastern mystics say "Be still and know", and by that they mean be still physically and mentally. There is no effort, or thinking required to "know" god. But this is not referencing to knowing god as a separate entity or with any characteristics, because god is beyond logic.

 

That is an inconsistent statement. If the deity is beyond logic, then he is illogical. Also, since he is no longer bound by the realms of logic, one would have to accept every supernatural claim as equally likely as the next.

 

Also, if God is beyond the realm of logic, then how can one make the claim of his existence? Without logic the claim would have to be completely made up. Also, if God created the universe, then we should be able to test parts of the universe to find his existence within reality--which is bound to logic and science.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!".

Of course. Because that's using your logic to think about him being beyond logic. Some eastern mystics say "Be still and know", and by that they mean be still physically and mentally. There is no effort, or thinking required to "know" god. But this is not referencing to knowing god as a separate entity or with any characteristics, because god is beyond logic.

 

That is an inconsistent statement. If the deity is beyond logic, then he is illogical. Also, since he is no longer bound by the realms of logic, one would have to accept every supernatural claim as equally likely as the next.

 

Also, if God is beyond the realm of logic, then how can one make the claim of his existence? Without logic the claim would have to be completely made up. Also, if God created the universe, then we should be able to test parts of the universe to find his existence within reality--which is bound to logic and science.

Surely can seem "illogical". God doesn't have to be logical though. I say accept what you feel is true. I don't have to make the claim of his existence. And how can you test for something's "existence" if it is the essence of everything? You will never find scientific evidence because god is not some type of force or shape. It is beyond it. There is really nothing to find.

 

Again, all of this can easily be "false". For I can not prove that any type of human logic and therefore the "facts" that come of it are true.


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!".

Of course. Because that's using your logic to think about him being beyond logic. Some eastern mystics say "Be still and know", and by that they mean be still physically and mentally. There is no effort, or thinking required to "know" god. But this is not referencing to knowing god as a separate entity or with any characteristics, because god is beyond logic.

 

That is an inconsistent statement. If the deity is beyond logic, then he is illogical. Also, since he is no longer bound by the realms of logic, one would have to accept every supernatural claim as equally likely as the next.

 

Also, if God is beyond the realm of logic, then how can one make the claim of his existence? Without logic the claim would have to be completely made up. Also, if God created the universe, then we should be able to test parts of the universe to find his existence within reality--which is bound to logic and science.

Surely can seem "illogical". God doesn't have to be logical though. I say accept what you feel is true. I don't have to make the claim of his existence. And how can you test for something's "existence" if it is the essence of everything? You will never find scientific evidence because god is not some type of force or shape. It is beyond it. There is really nothing to find.

 

Again, all of this can easily be "false". For I can not prove that any type of human logic and therefore the "facts" that come of it are true.

Come on, you're being ridiculous. I could make any claim and use your arguments. I own a pen that keeps tigers away. Oh, you want to see this pen? Sorry, can't do that. You want proof that this pen keeps tigers away? ... Do you see any tigers? How does it work? Oh, I can't explain that to you. The pen is beyond your logic. This pen draws from the essence of EVERYTHING. How can you test for its power's existence if it is the essence of everything? You will never find scientific evidence because the power that binds this pen is not some type of force or shape. It is beyond it. There is really nothing to find.

 

It's absolutely ridiculous, [developmentally delayed]ed and down-right stupid to believe in a god without ANY evidence, let alone a specific god(for example, the Judeo-Christian god) if you've thought it through. Using your arguments, like sephiroth said, one would have to accept every supernatural claim as equally likely as the next.


TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely can seem "illogical". God doesn't have to be logical though. I say accept what you feel is true. I don't have to make the claim of his existence. And how can you test for something's "existence" if it is the essence of everything? You will never find scientific evidence because god is not some type of force or shape. It is beyond it. There is really nothing to find.

 

Again, all of this can easily be "false". For I can not prove that any type of human logic and therefore the "facts" that come of it are true.

 

If you accept what you "feel" as true, then you are taking a leap of faith, and as I have said before, I believe that is a cop out from using logic and is inherently dishonest. Basing one's beliefs on feelings instead of logic, in other words... But you are obviously free to believe what you want.

 

But anyway, it IS illogical. Not seems that way, IS. Not trying to sound condescending, but if something is beyond logic, it is illogical. I mean, I can understand that there are believers that tap dance around things like this (again, apologize if I sound like a douchebag), in fact I'm in a family that thinks like this, but logic applies to everything that exists within the natural world. If God doesn't exist in the natural world or logic, he is therefore both illogical and unnatural, for example. If God is the essence of everything, then shouldn't we be able to test him in everything? If this i the case, he exists within our natural universe and is bound to logic.

 

In any case, one must stay within the boundaries of logic lest the break natural law and therefore be illogical and silly. Saying God doesn't have to be logical is silly, seeing as he first and foremost would be the creator of the natural universe, time and logic and be an overseer of it (unless he doesn't care).

 

If we cannot find any evidence of an existence of a creator because he is simply "beyond" everything, then we have no reason to believe in him. After that, its all a matter of personal security and the want for something to be real.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Come on, you're being ridiculous. I could make any claim and use your arguments. I own a pen that keeps tigers away. Oh, you want to see this pen? Sorry, can't do that. You want proof that this pen keeps tigers away? ... Do you see any tigers? How does it work? Oh, I can't explain that to you. The pen is beyond your logic. This pen draws from the essence of EVERYTHING. How can you test for its power's existence if it is the essence of everything? You will never find scientific evidence because the power that binds this pen is not some type of force or shape. It is beyond it. There is really nothing to find.

 

It's absolutely ridiculous, [developmentally delayed]ed and down-right stupid to believe in a god without ANY evidence, let alone a specific god(for example, the Judeo-Christian god) if you've thought it through. Using your arguments, like sephiroth said, one would have to accept every supernatural claim as equally likely as the next.

They are equal to the next. You can not prove that human logic is true. Therefor any of our thoughts can basically be said to be false. Yes, even that one ;)


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Come on, you're being ridiculous. I could make any claim and use your arguments. I own a pen that keeps tigers away. Oh, you want to see this pen? Sorry, can't do that. You want proof that this pen keeps tigers away? ... Do you see any tigers? How does it work? Oh, I can't explain that to you. The pen is beyond your logic. This pen draws from the essence of EVERYTHING. How can you test for its power's existence if it is the essence of everything? You will never find scientific evidence because the power that binds this pen is not some type of force or shape. It is beyond it. There is really nothing to find.

 

It's absolutely ridiculous, [developmentally delayed]ed and down-right stupid to believe in a god without ANY evidence, let alone a specific god(for example, the Judeo-Christian god) if you've thought it through. Using your arguments, like sephiroth said, one would have to accept every supernatural claim as equally likely as the next.

They are equal to the next. You can not prove that human logic is true. Therefor any of our thoughts can basically be said to be false. Yes, even that one ;)

...

Well then you must disregard you entire argument, as it can't ever be used, even as an argument for the existence of a god.


TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are equal to the next. You can not prove that human logic is true. Therefor any of our thoughts can basically be said to be false. Yes, even that one ;)

 

Human logic need not be true OR false because humans created logic and therefore are the only beings that can comprehend logic at all. No other being we know of can develop complex thought like us. There is no such thing as any other type of logic, so the "Human Logic" statement is just silly. Its just simply logic because we created a critical way of thinking that would help us to discover the universe as we perceive it. Its a word to describe the process of thinking critically, in other words.

 

The only thing that can disprove any conventional logic is something that is illogical and totally contradicts logic as we know it, in this case God, and not even a deity would be able to crush logic because he would have to be a creator of the human mind and the superior critical thinking skills which would lead to us striving for logic in the universe.

 

And to find that deity, one either needs to draw a lottery ticket ad hope its their deity or take a leap of faith. And both contradict intellect.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are equal to the next. You can not prove that human logic is true. Therefor any of our thoughts can basically be said to be false. Yes, even that one ;)

 

Human logic need not be true OR false because humans created logic and therefore are the only beings that can comprehend logic at all. No other being we know of can develop complex thought like us. There is no such thing as any other type of logic, so the "Human Logic" statement is just silly. Its just simply logic because we created a critical way of thinking that would help us to discover the universe as we perceive it. Its a word to describe the process of thinking critically, in other words.

 

Yes, humans created logic. So logic can maybe be considered "true" to humans, but is it true to the universe and existence in general? We can't know with our logic. Since we can't prove the logic is true, because attempting to do so would be using logic anyway. Everything we think of is equally false.

 

Even this post can be considered all false.


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, humans created logic. So logic can maybe be considered "true" to humans, but is it true to the universe and any type of existence in general? We can't know with our logic. Since we can't prove the logic is true, because attempting to do so would be using logic anyway. Everything we think of is equally false.

 

Even this post can be considered all false.

 

The universe is indifferent to what we think because it is not a sentient being. As to it being true to any other type of existence, it would probably have to be on par or the same as our logic if it were, for example, a God because that God would have had to existed with the laws of the universe or be born with the laws of the universe that created them, and if he was here before the laws, that would beg the question as to how he got there, and who created him, creating a never ending paradox and therefore, for lack of a better word, silly.

 

As to other beings we don't know about...that's the problem. We don't know about them, so we can assume their non existence until we find credible evidence to other existences.

 

We can know our logic is true because it is still bound to natural laws around us, humans didn't arbitrarily make up random rules in which logic is bound to, but our universe had laws that logic must be bound to. Gravity, for example. The Laws of physics as another.

 

Again. Logic doesn't need to be proven true or false. Its not something which can be falsified or made truth because it is in tune with the laws of the universe and as such is already bound to be true. Nothing needed to "prove" something so abstract.

 

Edit: Apologies for any bad grammar or syntax errors. Its 3:20 here and I'm anxious about going back to my university tomorrow and therefore can't get to sleep. :P


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, humans created logic. So logic can maybe be considered "true" to humans, but is it true to the universe and any type of existence in general? We can't know with our logic. Since we can't prove the logic is true, because attempting to do so would be using logic anyway. Everything we think of is equally false.

 

Even this post can be considered all false.

 

The universe is indifferent to what we think because it is not a sentient being. As to it being true to any other type of existence, it would probably have to be on par or the same as our logic if it were, for example, a God because that God would have had to existed with the laws of the universe or be born with the laws of the universe that created them, and if he was here before the laws, that would beg the question as to how he got there, and who created him, creating a never ending paradox and therefore, for lack of a better word, silly.

 

As to other beings we don't know about...that's the problem. We don't know about them, so we can assume their non existence until we find credible evidence to other existences.

 

We can know our logic is true because it is still bound to natural laws around us, humans didn't arbitrarily make up random rules in which logic is bound to, but our universe had laws that logic must be bound to. Gravity, for example. The Laws of physics as another.

 

Again. Logic doesn't need to be proven true or false. Its not something which can be falsified or made truth because it is in tune with the laws of the universe and as such is already bound to be true. Nothing needed to "prove" something so abstract.

 

Edit: Apologies for any bad grammar or syntax errors. Its 3:20 here and I'm anxious about going back to my university tomorrow and therefore can't get to sleep. :P

Yes, but how do we know that the laws are what they are? Because of our logic which comes from our perceptions. How do we know that either of those is correct? We don't. Of course you can learn thousands of facts about the universe and read about philosophies and all that, but in the end those might be as false as anything else. We are an object of existence, and we know existence because of our perceptions. But what happens when there is no one left to perceive? Existence becomes basically nothing. Perceptions are what make nothing seem like something. Nothing can come from something and something can come from nothing. Actually for nothing to exists something has to exist, and for something to exist nothing has to exist. Essentially something and nothing are one, because one can not exists without the other. Alas, existence and anything that comes out of it is one.

 

But all of this is plain [cabbage] so... meh :P


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.

 

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.

 

It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief

What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.

 

I say God is evil to not release knowledge that would allow me to accept his existence, you might say that he asks for blind faith and he isnt subject to release knowledge to appease some puny human, however the most hardline way of thinking is that he made me this way and unless he made me to be thrown into hell then it is his duty to give me knowledge on the flaws I have previously stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I say God is evil to not release knowledge that would allow me to accept his existence, you might say that he asks for blind faith and he isnt subject to release knowledge to appease some puny human, however the most hardline way of thinking is that he made me this way and unless he made me to be thrown into hell then it is his duty to give me knowledge on the flaws I have previously stated.

Lol. I love you <3:


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but how do we know that the laws are what they are? Because of our logic which comes from our perceptions. How do we know that either of those is correct? We don't. Of course you can learn thousands of facts about the universe and read about philosophies and all that, but in the end those might be as false as anything else. We are an object of existence, and we know existence because of our perceptions. But what happens when there is no one left to perceive? Existence becomes basically nothing. Perceptions are what make nothing seem like something. Nothing can come from something and something can come from nothing. Actually for nothing to exists something has to exist, and for something to exist nothing has to exist. Essentially something and nothing are one, because one can not exists without the other. Alas, existence and anything that comes out of it is one.

 

But all of this is plain [cabbage] so... meh :P

 

When there is no one left to perceive ten we cease to exist. The laws don't cease to exist. NOTHING ceases to exist until it "dies"--whether it be humans or a star above. everything stays the same until another big crunch.

 

What separates a human from an animal is that we understand existence and can discern as such. If we die, there will be nothing else to perceive what we cognitively can...but that doesn't mean existence no longer has meaning. Thats a blatant lie, intentional or not. Maybe, per say, YOU die, then your existence no longer means anything in the present moment...but everything else is still there and does exist. Same if all humans die--the earth, the stars, everything still exists and that doesn't devalue the existence simply because we, as humans, can't perceive it. If anything, that's an egocentric way of thinking.

 

Your next statements are also patently absurd and sound like appeals to ignorance. Something can come from nothing and vice versa? No. Absolutely not. Something doesn't have to exist for nothing to exist, that's a contradiction. You know what? I don't understand how you could've posted that last part. Its self contradictory and is an argument that sounds like it comes from a spawn of a beaten philosophical ideal. Like taking Nietzsche's Abyss quote and beating the [cabbage] out of it and posting it up. :/


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but how do we know that the laws are what they are? Because of our logic which comes from our perceptions. How do we know that either of those is correct? We don't. Of course you can learn thousands of facts about the universe and read about philosophies and all that, but in the end those might be as false as anything else. We are an object of existence, and we know existence because of our perceptions. But what happens when there is no one left to perceive? Existence becomes basically nothing. Perceptions are what make nothing seem like something. Nothing can come from something and something can come from nothing. Actually for nothing to exists something has to exist, and for something to exist nothing has to exist. Essentially something and nothing are one, because one can not exists without the other. Alas, existence and anything that comes out of it is one.

 

But all of this is plain [cabbage] so... meh :P

 

When there is no one left to perceive ten we cease to exist. The laws don't cease to exist. NOTHING ceases to exist until it "dies"--whether it be humans or a star above. everything stays the same until another big crunch.

 

What separates a human from an animal is that we understand existence and can discern as such. If we die, there will be nothing else to perceive what we cognitively can...but that doesn't mean existence no longer has meaning. Thats a blatant lie, intentional or not. Maybe, per say, YOU die, then your existence no longer means anything in the present moment...but everything else is still there and does exist. Same if all humans die--the earth, the stars, everything still exists and that doesn't devalue the existence simply because we, as humans, can't perceive it. If anything, that's an egocentric way of thinking.

 

Your next statements are also patently absurd and sound like appeals to ignorance. Something can come from nothing and vice versa? No. Absolutely not. Something doesn't have to exist for nothing to exist, that's a contradiction. You know what? I don't understand how you could've posted that last part. Its self contradictory and is an argument that sounds like it comes from a spawn of a beaten philosophical ideal. Like taking Nietzsche's Abyss quote and beating the [cabbage] out of it and posting it up. :/

Yes but what is everything? There is NO value of existence apart from what we perceive. Something doesn't have to exist for nothing to exist? Think about what is nothing, and then you will realize that even that is something. Something is nothing and nothing is something. If we only had nothing than what is happening now wouldn't be happening, and if we only had something then equally nothing would occur, because we need nothing for there to be a something or else something would have always had to be. So it can be that we came from nothing, that was in a way something as well. They are both practically the same thing, except our perceptions make it seem dualistic.

 

[hide]

[/hide]

99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no God unless proven otherwise. I wish we could just leave it at that :unsure:

 

Not true. Pluto existed long before humans discovered it.

 

There is a huge difference between a lack of belief in something and a negative belief in something. Saying "I do not believe in god" does not imply "I believe there is no god." If I say that I don't believe in fairies, it means that I am not firmly convinced that fairies exist. I could be 50/50 for existence/nonexistence, I could be 10/90 for existence/nonexistence. Or, I COULD be firmly convinced that they do not exist.

 

"I do not believe in fairies" means only that I am not firmly convinced of fairies.

 

"I believe that fairies do not exist" would mean that I am firmly convinced that there are no fairies.

 

A lack of belief in something doesn't automatically align you with the opposite.

 

When the lack of belief is nothing more than indifference, you're entirely correct. A rock is neither atheist nor theist. It is indifferent. But when someone makes the conscious claim that they do not believe what someone else said, that's a little more than indifference - and a little more than a lack of belief. It may be a lack of one belief, but it is replaced with another - the belief that what they said is untrue, and yes, even the possibility of their claim. Rejecting a claim does align you with the opposite. Now, "I don't know if fairies exist" would be the neutral, meaning you are not firmly convinced that fairies exist but are open to the possibility.

 

If it isn't what you meant, I suggest finding the words that do accurately depict your thoughts. That's just how the dictionary rolls. Saying "I do not believe" simply just means you made the conscious choice to not believe something - rejection of the idea. Also, I think you already made it pretty clear in this thread that your stance is to point at all the signs of "not god".

 

Main point: Atheists need to stop clogging up the neutral spot from those who actually are neutral on the matter.

 

Hell it sounds like I'm making a pretty convincing argument. Maybe now we should be telling our kids that we really don't know if Santa exists.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that. He was a fabrication and the evidence of this is all around you for this one. Of course the same could be argued for a specific god like Zeus or the Christian one, and I'd mostly be in agreement, but your Santa Claus analogy was brought up in reference to the idea of any god. There just isn't enough evidence of all gods' nonexistence.

 

Something doesn't have to exist for nothing to exist, that's a contradiction.

 

Can the concept of "up" exist without "down"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the lack of belief is nothing more than indifference, you're entirely correct. A rock is neither atheist nor theist. It is indifferent. When someone makes the claim that they do not believe what someone else said, that does imply that you are rejecting the claim, and yes, even the possibility of their claim. Consciously claiming that you do "not" believe something is not an indifferent neutral stance - rejecting their claim does align you with the opposite. "I don't know if fairies exist" means you are not firmly convinced that fairies exist.

 

If it isn't what you meant, I suggest finding the words that do accurately depict your thoughts. That's just how the dictionary rolls. Saying "I do not believe" simply just means you made the conscious choice to not believe something - rejection of the idea. You made the statement that you believe there is no god. Also, I think you already made it pretty clear in this thread that your stance is to point at all the signs of "not god".

 

I don't know what exactly so say from here except that I completely disagree, and I firmly believe that you are incorrect. If someone says "Hey I'm the worlds strongest man" and I say "I don't believe you" it doesn't mean that I believe he is the worlds weakest man. It also doesn't necessarily mean that you firmly believe that he is not the world's strongest man. All it means is that you are not firmly convinced of his claim. It does not necessarily mean that you are firmly convinced of the opposite.

 

Saying "I don't believe that god exists" merely means that I am not firmly convinced that god exists. You could be 50/50, you could be weakly convinced that he exists, you could be entirely convinced that there is no god, or you could firmly be rejecting the existence of god. It simply doesn't mean the complete opposite...its just not how that sentence works.

 

If someone says "I don't believe _____" all you can tell is what they DONT believe.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that. He was a fabrication and the evidence of this is all around you for this one. Of course the same could be argued for a specific god like Zeus or the Christian one, and I'd mostly be in agreement, but your Santa Claus analogy was brought up in reference to the idea of any god. There isn't enough evidence of all gods' nonexistence.

 

Where is the evidence of Santa's non-existence? You named a few earlier, but what if Santa is similar to God, with the whole "can't be detected, can't be understood, etc"? If that is the case then your previous evidence doesn't really disprove anything about Santa.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone says "Hey I'm the worlds strongest man" and I say "I don't believe you" it doesn't mean that I believe he is the worlds weakest man.

 

I never suggested such a thing. I don't recall saying disbelieving god means you believe the devil. To say "I do not believe you" when someone says they are the strongest man is to say, "I do not believe you are the world's strongest man." He either is or isn't. Your stance can be that he is, he isn't, or that you don't know. I mean sure, saying you don't know also means you do not believe it semantically speaking, but why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does? It would just be more accurate and less misleading to say you don't know.

 

Saying "I don't believe that god exists" merely means that I am not firmly convinced that god exists. You could be 50/50, you could be weakly convinced that he exists, you could be entirely convinced that there is no god, or you could firmly be rejecting the existence of god. It simply doesn't mean the complete opposite...its just not how that sentence works.

 

If someone says "I don't believe _____" all you can tell is what they DONT believe.

 

The important thing to look at here is the conscious aspect. Your argument holds up for all of those who truly are indifferent - they lack the belief of god and there is nothing more to it (technically speaking, they "don't believe in god"). We're not talking about rocks or people who have never heard of god though. We're talking about self-ascribed atheists trying to pretend that they are neutral when the majority of their posts scream "no god, no god, no god" and when their label literally means "without god". That barely constitutes as neutral. You are dismissing a claim as untrue by consciously claiming you do not believe it - simply put, you believe it to be untrue.

 

Where is the evidence of Santa's non-existence? You named a few earlier, but what if Santa is similar to God, with the whole "can't be detected, can't be understood, etc"? If that is the case then your previous evidence doesn't really disprove anything about Santa.

 

But he isn't. Santa Claus, as you and I know him, the one you were referencing, is known to wear a red suit and go into people's houses every year. If by Santa Claus, you meant any being in the universe that goes under that name, and not the jolly fat man in red we see on television all the time, you would be right - there is no evidence of that guy's nonexistence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing to look at here is the conscious aspect. Your argument holds up for all of those who truly are indifferent - they lack the belief of god and there is nothing more to it (technically speaking, they "don't believe in god"). We're not talking about rocks or people who have never heard of god though. We're talking about self-ascribed atheists trying to pretend that they are neutral when the majority of their posts scream "no god, no god, no god" and when their label literally means "without god". That barely constitutes as neutral. You are dismissing a claim as untrue by consciously claiming you do not believe it - simply put, you believe it to be untrue.

 

So you are saying that if I think there is a 0.001% chance that god exists, I would be more accurate in saying "I don't know" than "I'm an atheist"?

 

Good luck with that. I would say most atheists, at least most of the ones I have talked to, would not say "There IS NO god" but "There almost certainly is no god." Even Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most outspoken and prominent atheist figures describes his belief as a belief that "there almost certainly is no god." This is because most atheists are scientifically minded, and no scientist would ever be so stubborn to think that he certainly 100% has his story correct. If you define "belief" as the assertion that something is 100% certain, I think you would find that I and many like-minded scientists would have to say then that "I have no beliefs"...at least not about things in the physical world.

 

But he isn't. Santa Claus, as you and I know him, the one you were referencing, is known to wear a red suit and go into people's houses every year. If by Santa Claus, you meant any being in the universe that goes under that name, and not the jolly fat man in red we see on television all the time, you would be right - there is no evidence of that guy's nonexistence.

 

Yeah maybe we just have his story all wrong...


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no God unless proven otherwise. I wish we could just leave it at that :unsure:

 

Not true. Pluto existed long before humans discovered it.

That's true, but it's absurd to believe in a god until evidence is presented, just as it would have been absurd to believe there was a ninth planet until any evidence was presented. As another example, even if the world ended in 2012, all those who believed that it would end in 2012 would still be lunatics, as there was no evidence to suggest that any such event would occur. It would still have been an absurd belief to hold.


TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.