Jump to content

My challenge to atheists and theists.


BlueLancer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can we do anything without resulting to personal insults? C'mon. At least construct a post without logical fallacies.

 

 

 

But out of all the things I read, this one takes the cake. Seriously man, you of all people have no right to talk about insults.

 

 

 

What? Besides this topic, in which I noted I realized the irony and (minimal) hypocrisy.

 

 

 

It strikes me that people seem to think something has to be logical in order to be acceptable.

 

 

 

I was simply saying that beleif and firm non-beleif aren't as logical as neither.

IRKAa.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GhostRanger

Okay. I'll explain why your argument fails, since you asked so nicely.

 

 

 

Your second point, that you can't prove that God doesn't exist, so you have to accept the possiblity that he could exist, is horribly weak.

 

 

 

P1: God can not be proven to not exist.

 

P2: Assuming that God cannot be proven to not exist, nothing can be proven to not exist.

 

C1: If nothing can be proven to not exist, any thought, idea or belief has the possiblity of existence.

 

 

 

Assume C1:

 

P4: If something exists, it has truth. (That truth being its existence, at the very least).

 

C2: Every thought, idea, or belief has the possiblity of truth.

 

 

 

Assume C2:

 

P5: I believe that a force in the universe exists that makes humans believe we are made out of atoms when we are actually made out of cheese.

 

P6: Because of C1, the existence of this being is possible.

 

P7: Because of C2, there is a possible truth in my belief.

 

P8: Something cannot be true and false (law of contradiction. Not (P and not-P)

 

C3: Humans cannot be proven to be made of atoms because the possibility of them being made of cheese exists.

 

 

 

Assume C3:

 

P9: What we believe as truth, cannot be truth because of the possibility that other ideas exist.

 

C4: Therefore, nothing can be proven as true or false.

 

 

 

Assume C4:

 

 

 

You said: Therefore, if anybody can present me convincing proof otherwise, I'd be happy to debate the FACT that the only LOGICAL (not religious) 'belief' is agnosticism.

 

 

 

P10: I believe that the only logical belief is atheism.

 

P11: Because of C4, you cannot prove me wrong.

 

C5: Therefore, agnosticism is not the most logical belief there is.

 

 

 

There, you asked me to prove you wrong and I did.

 

 

 

See what you did by rejecting atheism based on the idea that "you can't prove God doesn't exist?" You force yourself to completely reject knowledge, logic, or truth in any form - and therefore reject your own ability to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another God topic? This will go on forever and you know why? Because there isn't to support either side. And indecision? You either believe him or not. The middle I would consider nonbelieving but that's just me. I was brought up as a firm Muslim (Shiah, I was born in Canada). I was taught to accept all beliefs and there's nothing wrong with not believing in god. It's a personal choice and I believe no one has the right to interfere (except your parents maybe but only when you're young and learning).

dmanxb7.jpg

Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07

Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you prove or disprove anything?

 

 

 

"You think that's air you're breathing?"

 

 

 

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

 

 

 

Eventually you have to make a decision with these philosophical questions (based on what you consider to be the evidence), so that you can move on with your life.

 

 

 

That's different to other scientific questions, where one day there will be an answer. In that case, it's OK to say that you're not sure yet.

 

 

 

As to the decision you make? I think that it probably doesn't matter. As long as you think you've made the decision yourself, you'll be happy with it.

For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.

The time when the living and the dead exist as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that people seem to think something has to be logical in order to be acceptable.

 

 

 

I was simply saying that beleif and firm non-beleif aren't as logical as neither.

 

 

 

To be fair, I wasn't really referring to you, and in a sense I agree with your statement there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rofl @ Tigra00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stand by my atheism. Life is simply easier without being unsure about the existance or something, or being concious of everything you do so as to not destroy "eternal salvation" or whatever says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP. (Well said, by the way).

 

 

 

I have seen no proof either way, so it would be unfair for me to say that there is or isn't a god. I don't see that there can be any more to it than that. Were God to speak to me, or something, then I could say "Yes, there is a god"; on the other hand, nothing can prove that there is no god*

 

 

 

I don't feel any compulsion to make a decision either way. In fact, I see it as better to not make a decision when nothing rests upon that decision (assuming, of course, that one decides to be atheist: lots of worship and praying depends on deciding to be religious), and one could be wrong. To me, it really doesn't matter that I've not decided. It doesn't affect my life, in the same way that my not deciding whether Schr̮̦̉̉dinger's cat is alive or dead doesn't affect my life.

 

 

 

 

 

*the very concept of a god is such that such a being must be able to exist**, in that, being all powerful, it could account for any reasons for its non-existance. That is, however much evidence there may be that a god doesn't exist (proof, even), it could all be part of God's big plan (or similar). Also, the idea that all the terrible things that happen in the world being evidence of there not being a god (or a god's being malicious) could be thought of like this: it's an all powerful being, usually meant to be good... it could just be that "God works in mysterious ways", and that all of it is actually for the greater good in ways that are just too complicated for any of us to understand -- which is completely plausible, considering how clever God would be***.

 

 

 

**though, obviously, does not necessarily.

 

 

 

 

 

***"would" here betrays my nature as an atheist in practice, agnostic in theory: I act as if there is no god, but that's just because it seems the most sensible thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I'll explain why your argument fails, since you asked so nicely.

 

 

 

Your second point, that you can't prove that God doesn't exist, so you have to accept the possiblity that he could exist, is horribly weak.

 

 

 

P1: God can not be proven to not exist.

 

P2: Assuming that God cannot be proven to not exist, nothing can be proven to not exist.

 

C1: If nothing can be proven to not exist, any thought, idea or belief has the possiblity of existence.

 

 

 

God can not be proven to not exist because he is omnipotent. All other supernatural people (i.e. santa) have specific conditions (i.e. come to house on christmas eve with gifts) that can be refuted (i.e. video of parents putting gifts under the tree on christmas eve and eating cookies meant for santa).

 

 

 

 

Assume C1:

 

P4: If something exists, it has truth. (That truth being its existence, at the very least).

 

C2: Every thought, idea, or belief has the possiblity of truth.

 

 

 

Assume C2:

 

P5: I believe that a force in the universe exists that makes humans believe we are made out of atoms when we are actually made out of cheese.

 

P6: Because of C1, the existence of this being is possible.

 

P7: Because of C2, there is a possible truth in my belief.

 

P8: Something cannot be true and false (law of contradiction. Not (P and not-P)

 

C3: Humans cannot be proven to be made of atoms because the possibility of them being made of cheese exists.

 

 

 

But we don't look, feel or taste like cheese. Like I said above, cheese (like santa clause) has specific conditions that apply to it. God doesn't.

lordringsbattlemiddleeamo1.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

God can not be proven to not exist because he is omnipotent. All other supernatural people (i.e. santa) have specific conditions (i.e. come to house on christmas eve with gifts) that can be refuted (i.e. video of parents putting gifts under the tree on christmas eve and eating cookies meant for santa).

 

 

 

 

Yeah -- just what I mean. Still, the more pedantic among us might wonder whether Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy (amongst others) are also prescient to some degree, and are merely hiding and hiring these parents to assume their roles to keep themselves from ever being seen (thus -- in a way -- keeping the magic alive). After all, Santa not visiting someone might just reflect Santa's opinion that that someone has been a very naughty boy. I myself have seen him on numerous occasions, of course.

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, and, as an afterthought... some might think "Oh, well in that case*, one can't prove god does exist, even if he speaks to you or something: it could just be an illusion". God, being omnipotent, could prove that he exists, by virtue of being able to do anything (that included).

 

 

 

*the whole "God cannot be proven not to exist" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ALL suck. I'M right!!!! [/radical christians]

 

 

 

You can't believe anything just because it's in a book.

 

 

 

It's all about fear. If you fear that you are going to hell if you don't believe in a guy up in a place we can't get to who talks to people using burning shrubbery, then you will believe in all of the above.

 

 

 

This reminds me of a thing I found a few days ago.

 

 

 

Right about here

I used to have a link to my school's project to provide fresh water to a Kenyan Village, but the sig police changed the link to say something, which, if followed, leads to an "ahem" adult website. Let me ask you. Which do you think is worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thread! I too am agnostic, I doubt there's a biblistic God, but I do believe there are things we'll never be able to explain, other than with the answer: "some unknown force is the cause of it".

 

 

 

But IMHO, agnosticism is just a part of many other ways of thinking. Atheism is when people are convinced there is no God, but you can argue about what we understand with the meaning of 'God'. To me, the existence of myself is reason enough to believe in something more than this all. Yet I do not believe in God. You could say I'm an Atheist, but others will say I'm an Agnosticist.

 

Buddhism, the religion of those that follow the thaughts of the Buddha, is also one of the religions that claim there is no 'God', they only believe wisdom and the noble truths. A Buddha is generally considered to be a person who discovers the true nature of reality through years of spiritual cultivation, investigation of the various religious practices of his time, and meditation (thanks wiki).

 

So one may say Agnosticism is also inherent in this religion.

 

 

 

May I ask the Christians who'll post in this thread to prove the existence of God not to use quotes from the Bible, but rather plain logic, so that we can all agree on this matter? If you use biblistic quotes, only fellow Christians that value the Bible will believe you. To me, a book doesn't prove anything. Thanks!

Bill Hicks[/url]":dhj2kan9]Since the one thing we can say about fundamental matter is, that it is vibrating. And since all vibrations are theoretically sound, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the universe is music and should be perceived as such.

heinzny2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask the Christians who'll post in this thread to prove the existence of God not to use quotes from the Bible, but rather plain logic, so that we can all agree on this matter? If you use biblistic quotes, only fellow Christians that value the Bible will believe you. To me, a book doesn't prove anything. Thanks!

 

You ALL suck. I'M right!!!! [/radical christians]

 

 

 

You can't believe anything just because it's in a book.

 

 

 

It's all about fear. If you fear that you are going to hell if you don't believe in a guy up in a place we can't get to who talks to people using burning shrubbery, then you will believe in all of the above.

 

 

 

Just because a particular sect's definition of god might be convoluted doesn't rule out the existence of a higher being that is invisible to us.

lordringsbattlemiddleeamo1.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a particular sect's definition of god might be convoluted doesn't rule out the existence of a higher being that is invisible to us.

 

 

 

Apparently you think I 'rule out the existence of a higher being that is invisible to us', right? Where did I say that?

 

I merely want people to use the lingo that everyone can understand and accept, not a Bible quote. That's because I do not believe humanity (after all, I believe the Bible is written by mortals who did not receive the word from God) can explain that God exists. I'm an Agnost, remember.

 

So if they want to convince other agnosts/atheists... that God exists, they'll have to rely on other means to prove themselves.

 

One of my favourite explanations, for example, is our own existence. I believe probably everything can be explained, but why I *live* and why I live *now* and not 1000 years ago is a mystery to me. That's the sole thing I can think of that there might be a higher power that regulates these things somehow.

Bill Hicks[/url]":dhj2kan9]Since the one thing we can say about fundamental matter is, that it is vibrating. And since all vibrations are theoretically sound, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the universe is music and should be perceived as such.

heinzny2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What sort of evidence are you looking for Blue? God descending to earth himself, and saying "Hey people, I'm real!" :?

 

 

 

There are a ton of events that happen around the world that restore people's faith in a higher power. Now this is regarded as proof to them, but may not be to you. This is exactly where religion and opinion mix, and it's usually not too pretty. People are so narrow minded that we rule out the beliefs of others (like you mentioned in your post).

 

 

 

I, however, have an incredible strong belief in my religion, Hinduism, which also accepts the religions of others. There are specific writings that talk about God as Jesus, being the son of god, or Allah. If often talks about whatever the name we choose to give him, in the end, God = God.

 

 

 

I think in everyone's life, there's a point where one questions God's existence, agnosticism as you call it. I think one would be incredibly confused living their lives continuously searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. You just have to understand the concepts of religion as a whole, and your ideologies and views on the world should guide you to follow a religion, or follow none.

 

 

 

I don't know how clear that was, hopefully you understood it. In short, living life in the grey area just isn't living life. :?

signaturecj5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that Grey Area, as you call it, BMW. It leaves space for hope and it also has reason and logic into it.

Bill Hicks[/url]":dhj2kan9]Since the one thing we can say about fundamental matter is, that it is vibrating. And since all vibrations are theoretically sound, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the universe is music and should be perceived as such.

heinzny2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think in everyone's life, there's a point where one questions God's existence, agnosticism as you call it. I think one would be incredibly confused living their lives continuously searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. You just have to understand the concepts of religion as a whole, and your ideologies and views on the world should guide you to follow a religion, or follow none.

 

 

 

I don't know how clear that was, hopefully you understood it. In short, living life in the grey area just isn't living life. :?

 

 

 

Being agnostic doesn't mean searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. It means accepting that you can't.

lordringsbattlemiddleeamo1.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think in everyone's life, there's a point where one questions God's existence, agnosticism as you call it. I think one would be incredibly confused living their lives continuously searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. You just have to understand the concepts of religion as a whole, and your ideologies and views on the world should guide you to follow a religion, or follow none.

 

 

 

I don't know how clear that was, hopefully you understood it. In short, living life in the grey area just isn't living life. :?

 

 

 

Being agnostic doesn't mean searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. It means accepting that you can't.

 

 

 

Ok, I admit to knowing nothing about the term agnostic.

 

 

 

If that's what it means... #-o

 

 

 

So one wouldn't believe or disbelieve in God...great. Who really cares then? I mean, not to be a mean guy or anything, but really, who cares if you have no distinct opinion?

 

 

 

The opinion of agnosticism seems to be "no opinion", if you get what I mean. You can go through life saying "I don't know" to everything, and if that's what makes you happy, great. If you have no side or opinion, then really, who cares. You all of a sudden become obsolete in the arguement of atheist of theist.

 

 

 

To put it in perspective:

 

 

 

Someone says "Choose, Jessica Alba, or Jessica Simpson." You reply "I like both."

 

 

 

The person who asks the question just gained nothing, but wasted like 10 seconds of their life, probably giving the reaction --> :roll:

 

 

 

However, I'm not trying to make fun of anyone's beliefs, or lack thereof. I really could care less if someones agnostic, atheist, or theist. The world has basically established that no matter what, people will remain atheist or theist, regardless of what the "other side" says/tries to prove. Agreed?

signaturecj5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's something Lancer is actually fretting about. I really do believe the thread was made purely for discussion.

 

Some people are taking a tad too much.

 

 

 

Heh, some people, meaning me?

 

 

 

I wasn't aiming my comments at anyone, simply stating what went on in my mind after I read the post, that's all. :oops:

signaturecj5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

P9: What we believe as truth, cannot be truth because of the possibility that other ideas exist.

 

C4: Therefore, nothing can be proven as true or false.

 

 

 

P10: I believe that the only logical belief is atheism.

 

P11: Because of C4, you cannot prove me wrong.

 

C5: Therefore, agnosticism is not the most logical belief there is.

 

 

 

 

This part of the argument is not sound. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re using a belief in a natural phenomena and a natural method of scientific reasoning and assuming the same can be said for the supernatural world. There is (reasonably) direct access to the natural world, with that access we are able to determine wether something has a true or untrue premise; with the supernatural world such access doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Without a valid form of inference there is no way to tell if something should exist or shouldn't exist. If inference (good access) were possible then it wouldn't be a supernatural phenomenon, rather one which is natural and verifiable. To put it simply, the scientific method (whatever that may be) does not deal with the supernatural and you can't use it as benchmark for explaining the existence of a supernatural entity.

 

 

 

If it were as easy as you are suggesting (and I wish it were), why would religion and other superstitions still be relevant to people; people still believe in gods, ghosts, astrology and homeopathy. What classes these phenomena as being non-scientific and something like psychology or string theory as science? In the case of psychology, it has subjective elements and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsoftÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ research methods (quizzes, surveys) and in the case of string theory it makes predictions that are currently (and possibly) permanently unverifiable, yet has a very strong basis in mathematics (which does not necessarily imply a strong basis in physics). What is the difference between knowing god, knowing that your patient is depressed and knowing that super string theory explains our current physics and more?

 

 

 

 

P9: What we believe as truth, cannot be truth because of the possibility that other ideas exist.

 

C4: Therefore, nothing can be proven as true or false.

 

P10: I believe that the only logical belief is atheism.

 

P11: Because of C4, you cannot prove me wrong.

 

C5: Therefore, agnosticism is not the most logical belief there is.

 

 

 

 

Premise 9 is sketchy, there is no agreed definition of truth; there is a whole branch of philosophy discussing what truth is. For instance how do we know if a theory is true if we can't 100% accurately measure and isolate phenomena from the environment and aberrations in measuring equipment. There would be no truth in a measurement if uncertainties in said measurements exist. In physics experimental results are only good if they tell you what uncertainties exist in the results.

 

 

 

Premise 11 assumes that you can apply supernatural phenomena to the same logic as natural phenomena. However why would you assume such a thing is possible when you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even access the supernatural world or apply naturalistic methodologies to supernatural theories. The scientific method and associated logic would say that if every possibility is as likely, then no possibility is more true then the other; however the scientific method and logic only deal with natural phenomena and donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t apply to the supernatural.

 

 

 

I'm glad to clarify anything with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets go find Jesus's remains and clone him... see what he has to say

 

:thumbsup:

 

 

 

Pretty much the same thing Che Guevara would say. Something along the lines of "Look at all those shirtsssss! whoooooa!"

 

 

 

:P

michaelsigwm5.gif

^The most disturbing signature on Tip.it^

Last.fm|HELLY KAYLA!|Oh the mehagurtz!|#Siencemakers

"they care less about their spelling mistakes then I." - Lionheart

"apinagez... let me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are a ton of events that happen around the world that restore people's faith in a higher power. Now this is regarded as proof to them, but may not be to you. This is exactly where religion and opinion mix, and it's usually not too pretty. People are so narrow minded that we rule out the beliefs of others (like you mentioned in your post).

 

 

 

If you were to really research all the "miracle" healings happening around the world (and as of recent years, sadly on American television), how many times would you actually find a medical explanation behind these 'healings'? Or something as simple as 'faith' boosting your endorphine levels and making you feel less pain. I'm not one to say it couldn'tve been 'sent' by God but it's impossible to prove.

 

 

 

I, however, have an incredible strong belief in my religion, Hinduism, which also accepts the religions of others. There are specific writings that talk about God as Jesus, being the son of god, or Allah. If often talks about whatever the name we choose to give him, in the end, God = God.

 

 

 

You have an incredibly strong belief, nothing wrong with it. But if you can really prove that Brahman or any other of the God's in Hinduism are/were real, you would indeed be the first person in the world to do so. You cannot prove him with faith (and I can't unprove him with facts). What you can do is believe in hinduism, but if you say any of the supernatural events possibly mentioned in the sacred books of Vedas were possibly real, you are cheating yourself. There is absolutely no proof (though counterproof doesn't exist either)

 

 

 

You just have to understand the concepts of religion as a whole, and your ideologies and views on the world should guide you to follow a religion, or follow none.

 

 

 

Just because you have strong ideologies or concepts it does not mean you should "follow a religion". Do research on the samurai bushido ethics code; Some people in Japan still practice it. It's one of the most refined ethical guidelines ever created and it is not a religion. It's just how you choose to live.

 

 

 

Confucianism, just as well, is a concept, not a religion. There is a very clear line between the two. For example, this 'ideology' advocates many good changes to society to make it a better place for everyone. You do not worship anybody. That's getting off topic though...

 

 

 

I don't know how clear that was, hopefully you understood it. In short, living life in the grey area just isn't living life. :?

 

 

 

I can't argue on that one as it's obviously an opinion and I can't persuade you to think otherwise. But I strongly believe anybody can live 'life' even if they don't have a religion... I don't follow any religion but I don't consider myself emotionally or spiritually poor. Sure, a God could exist, who am I to dispute that? On the other hand, nobody can hand me over solid proof.

 

 

 

Ghostranger

 

 

 

Good to see a reply, I'm not at home right now so I will carefully view the other replies to your post in a few hours from now to make sure I can add something new to the table.

 

 

 

I like that Grey Area, as you call it, BMW. It leaves space for hope and it also has reason and logic into it.

 

 

 

I agree with that. I'm not ruling out the possibility...

 

 

 

I think in everyone's life, there's a point where one questions God's existence.

 

 

 

But, isn't it quite natural? If not, then what made you believe in God in the first place? Your school or parents? We must remember that our parents are humans too. They learned their beliefs possibly from their parents and so on.

 

 

 

If there is not definite proof, it should be natural to question the existence of an entity. Galileo had definite proof the Earth is indeed round based on his astrological studies, but the catholic church persecuted him based on simply beliefs.

 

 

 

The earth doesn't stop being round just because you believe God wrote some text in a book thousands of years ago. The facts remain no matter who inteprets them (or if nobody inteprets them at all)

Link to comment
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.