Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

[DemonArchangel]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

[Csargo]

Not possible

[Sasaki Kojiro]

True!

[Silver Rusher]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I delcare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.
Join the club. :yes:

Btw, it's agnostic.

I think the whole debate is stupid and irrelevant. People coming up with all kinds of crazy pieces of 'evidence' when really that evidence doesn't even slightly prove it, and some devoting their lives to proving something which isn't provable. Agnosticism is the only way.

[GoreBag]

Uh, congratulations.

[Csargo]

The fact you said God means you think there is a God. You love God don't lie.

:P

[DemonArchangel]

No, agnostic means being UNSURE of the existence of a God.

IGnostic on the other hand means that you think the concept of God is downright absurd.

[Spetulhu]

I'm my own god. :whip:

[Csargo]

I'm my own god. :whip:

Can I see a miracle?:inquisitive:

[Viking]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

Took you your whole life to make that conclusion? :beam:

[Csargo]

Prove to me there isn't a God.

[AntiochusIII]

Prove to me there isn't a God.Usually, it's often the positive proof that should come first, common sense-speaking.

If Quietus was here, he'd say something like, "Leprechauns; prove they don't exist."

I myself doesn't care, though. And DA, aren't you nullifying your own Ignostic position by engaging yourself in the question about the existence of the Divine?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well, We won't know till we die, and the Debate can go on and on. One "believer" can give the "edveince" out to the "Prove there is a god" people, but they can counter back,saying, "Well, it's cause by...."

[Lemur]

The word "prove" should never be used on an internet gaming forum.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The word "prove" should never be used on an internet gaming forum.

:stare:

[Csargo]

Usually, it's often the positive proof that should come first, common sense-speaking.

If Quietus was here, he'd say something like, "Leprechauns; prove they don't exist."

I myself doesn't care, though. And DA, aren't you nullifying your own Ignostic position by engaging yourself in the question about the existence of the Divine?

OOPS forgot to say I was joking. People are way too serious back here. Slave drivers even.

:egypt:

:ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip:

[Lemur]

:stare:
You know it's true. :snobby:

[DemonArchangel]

Usually, it's often the positive proof that should come first, common sense-speaking.

If Quietus was here, he'd say something like, "Leprechauns; prove they don't exist."

I myself doesn't care, though. And DA, aren't you nullifying your own Ignostic position by engaging yourself in the question about the existence of the Divine?

No, it's not nullifying it, because then anyone giving it a shot would have to define what God is first.

[Ronin]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.


even posing the question is the first mistake.

think about it.....if nobody had told you about "God"...would the concept even have come into your head?
if it isn´t a question that naturally comes to you what is the point of it....?

it´s just a silly social construct...let it go.

[Harald Den BlåToth]

No, agnostic means being UNSURE of the existence of a God.

IGnostic on the other hand means that you think the concept of God is downright absurd.
As one cannot prove there is a God nor that there isn't one, I think it would be morally sound to proclaim yourself "agnostic", "unsure", "skeptic"...
Because if there is a God...you'll burn in Hell mate:whip::yes::smash:

[Prince of the Poodles]

The best argument for the existence of God that I can think of is myself, my environment, and the rest of the world.

I find it hard to believe all of this - from the mountains and the oceans, to the microscopic cells that form them - just came about as a result of a big bang or coincidence.

So I could believe in a God, but not a religion run by people only interested in control.

[Csargo]

The best argument for the existence of God that I can think of is myself, my environment, and the rest of the world.

I find it hard to believe all of this - from the mountains and the oceans, to the microscopic cells that form them - just came about as a result of a big bang or coincidence.

So I could believe in a God, but not a religion run by people only interested in control.

You know what I hear. That teacher from Charlie Brown.

wha whaa wha whha wha wha :wall:

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Well done, well done another one come to their senses


No, agnostic means being UNSURE of the existence of a God.

IGnostic on the other hand means that you think the concept of God is downright absurd.

In that case what does atheist mean?

[Harald Den BlåToth]

In that case what does atheist mean?

One who denies the existence of god...

I have never heard of "ignostic" though. Nevertheless, the definitions are quite alike.

[lancelot]

Because if there is a God...you'll burn in Hell mate:whip::yes::smash:

I find it hard to fathom that "God" could give you freedom/ability to choose to not believe in him, then punish you for it when in the afterlife...thats just mean...



The best argument for the existence of God that I can think of is myself, my environment, and the rest of the world.

I find it hard to believe all of this - from the mountains and the oceans, to the microscopic cells that form them - just came about as a result of a big bang or coincidence.


Eh?

So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?


My very simple take on God-

Do you believe in the existence of 'The Force' or Superman or Flying Pink Elephants? No? Then why is God somehow real? I cant see how anyone can claim belief in God but not in any other crazy stuff...

EDIT:- You know why else God and heaven and all that is cobblers? Because life isnt that perfect. No happy endings, everythings gonna be all right. Life just isnt that kind.

[Ronin]

I find it hard to fathom that "God" could give you freedom/ability to choose to not believe in him, then punish you for it when in the afterlife...thats just mean...


that´s always been one of the things i´ve found funnier about the christian/judaic (spelling?) faith...

the motto seems to be:


Eternal damnation and punishment awaits those who question God's unconditional love

talk about an oxymoron

[sharrukin]

If a video game construct became self-aware how would it prove its own existence? We are in a similar situation with regards to proving God's existence or lack thereof. God is said to have created all things. He existed before creation, and therefore exists outside of it. He is outside our reference system. The point is that if in fact God exists, then OBVIOUSLY you cannot prove it without him wanting you to. If you could prove his existence without him wanting you to, then he wouldn't be God. He would be a part of the system, rather than outside of it. As part of creation, or the 'system', there is logically no way for us to prove what he doesn't want proven. He is the great programmer in the sky.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

"If you are such a simulated mind, there might be no direct observational way for you to tell; the virtual reality that you would be living in would look and feel perfectly real. But all that this shows, so far, is that you could never be completely sure that you are not living in a simulation."

"The simulation hypothesis, however, may have some subtle effects on rational everyday behaviour. To the extent that you think that you understand the motives of the simulators, you can use that understanding to predict what will happen in the simulated world they created. If you think that there is a chance that the simulator of this world happens to be, say, a true-to-faith descendant of some contemporary Christian fundamentalist, you might conjecture that he or she has set up the simulation in such a way that the simulated beings will be rewarded or punished according to Christian moral criteria. An afterlife would, of course, be a real possibility for a simulated creature (who could either be continued in a different simulation after her death or even be “uploaded” into the simulator’s universe and perhaps be provided with an artificial body there)."

"If we are in a simulation, is it possible that we could know that for certain? If the simulators don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. But if they choose to reveal themselves, they could certainly do so."

Maybe Al Gore is God, after all he invented the Internet.

[Byzantine Prince]

When you stop caring about anything it ceases to exist. Things only exist so long as we give them a special meaning.

Nothing can exist as as such, outside the mind.

[rory_20_uk]

Surely that depends on what you view existence to be.

~:smoking:

[Ice]

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

I'm a Roman Catholic and pretty libertarian when it comes to other people. I really could care less what your religion is. Good for you, that you think you found something that makes you happy.

[Csargo]

Roman Catholic .

Are you crazy? :shame:

[Scurvy]

So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?
.

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

Csar --> Whats wrong with him being Catholic? :2thumbsup:

[Csargo]

Your sig says it all Scury. It says it all.

[Scurvy]

No it doesn't (or am i missing something really obvious?) :2thumbsup:

[Ice]

Are you crazy? :shame:

Only when when I have exams or when people piss me off. So yes, I'm usually crazy because atleast one is happening always.

[Reverend Joe]

Let me try to explain God in a rational way.

God does not exist. However, I believe in It- more specifically, in Him, the male aspect of God. You see, the most plausible theory of God for me is that God is Life, and Life is God; but the two do not exist in the same way. They have interactions, but they are effectively impossible to comprehend. One example , though, may be how humans apparently may have eradicated all of the sentient apes, so that the human genus would have no competition: this may have been a drive stemming from the newly-sentient God, who saw a threat to Its existence and drove Humanity to destroy this threat, as It destroyed the threat on Its level. It was competing with other Gods, and It won.

Okay, what is the point of this? Well, how the hell can I prove any of this stuff I just said? I can't. God is not a scientific notion and to compare him/it to such is ridiculous in itself, because there is no correlation between the two. but to reject God outright because It is not scientific is folly, for this very reason.

So please reconsider your reasons. If you choose not to believe in God, fine. But do it for the right reasons.

And remember- you do not have to believe in what others tell you is God. You can decide for yourself what is God. It's your choice.

[AntiochusIII]

OOPS forgot to say I was joking. People are way too serious back here. Slave drivers even.

:egypt:

:ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip:Oh, but I enslave leprechauns for a living. You ain't gettin' no better job than torturing them 24/7 for their pots of gold. I ought to be serious all the time, lest the little smelly Irish greenfolk dare challenge my authority.

My post itself was not particularly serious. ~;)

[Divinus Arma]

I commend your open mind and lack of arrogance. It takes a truly humble individual to conclude that absolute certainty is unattainable. But if you are so willing to listen, I will share my perspective with you.

There are, in my view, two major consderations in a discussion on God. (1) Purpose, and (2) Ethical relevance.

The concept of religion itself is an antiquated and obsolete form of existential observation. We all hold a perspective on existence, be we agnostic, atheist, or devout. Therefore, set aside the notion of "religion" for just a moment. I would argue that the atheist shares more in common with the Christian or the Jew than he would prefer to admit. The only difference is the absence of organization in the observance of the atheist's perspective. Despite this, atheists share with spiritualists the concept of purpose and ethical relevance. These are the two overriding concepts in any existential perspective, regardless of name or origin.

First consider purpose. To the atheist, Man is both the highest order of known intellect and the equal of animals. From this viewpoint, the Atheist finds that his only prupose is hat which he himself chooses. This purpose may be a selfish one or it may be selfless. The concepts of "Good" and "Evil" are merely crafted from human imagination and relevant only in the selfish ambition of a symbiotic mutually gratifying civilization. In other words, civilization itself and its series of behavioral tradeoffs only function so long as there is an individual benefit to those within the society. When society ceases to be mutually rewarding, the individual agent of society may select an anti-social self-gratifying behavior with no feelings of guilt. Again, the purpose of the individual is that which the individual selects. Thus, an individual may choose to allow himself the "losing end" of a social role in order to benefit others. This provides an intrinsic reward rather than an extrinsic material benefit.

However, I would argue that self-determined purpose is ultimately empty purpose. The breat that you take today will matter no more than the last breath of your life. Your actions, choices, and the consequences are thus rendered irrelevant in this environment. There can be no satisfaction because ultimately you will die and you may well have never lived- you are worthless in the scope of time eternal. Your thoughts, dreams, loves, ambitions, relationships are all without any true purpose other than a brief goal to entertain your shallow and callous mind.

Now consider ethical relevance. I already mention the futile irrelevance of morality since "Good" and "Evil" exist only so long as one is willing to play a symbitotic role in society. Proponents of atheistic ethical philosophy rely on the concepts of utilitarianism, ehtical relativism, and Kantian theory. Utilitarianism argues that decision should be made which affect the most good for the largest amount of people, ex: If murdering one human will save the lives of two people, then it is an ethically acceptable proposition. Under moral relativism, the only justification for behavioral modification is that which the culture deeems appropriate, ex: Mayan human sacrifice is perfectly acceptable because the Mayan culture deems it so. Finally, Kant proposed the humans should be treated as ends themselves rather than simply means to an end, ex: In other words, propositions to utilize a human being as a sacrifice are unacceptable because the human life cannot be treated as an object of barter. While each of these theories alone provides us with a guide for ethical decision making, they all ultimately fail because there exists no ultimate moral authority. It relates back to the lack of purpose in human life and the inherent fact that ethics is ultimately futile and irrelevent.

God fills these voids by providing both purpose to humanity and ethical guidance, linked in one relationship. The failing of "religion" is in the claimed monoploy over superiority of perspective. As an eclectic, I find that all religions have equal universal principles which are found in their doctrine and interpretation. The difficulty is in removing the myth and legend and rooting to the intent. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Hindusism all offer a single God be he Yaweh, Allah, or Brahman. Buddhism teaches us that suffering can be avoided by abandoning desire, as does the Torah in the book of Job, as does Jesus's teaching on the perils of materialistic desire, and as does the Qu'ran in the celebration of Ramadan and the importance of the fast. In each and every existential perspective embracing a higher power, purpose is found in our relationships; first with God and secondly with each other. Why is this?

This is the relationship between Purpose and ethical relevance. I have gone on at length on this topic in previous threads. If you wish, I'll dig them up for you.

[Devastatin Dave]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.
Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728
:beam:

[AntiochusIII]

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728
:beam:DD, honestly:

I'm a convert. God loves us all.

And God's a she :P

[DemonArchangel]

Divinus Arma: I see what you're trying to say, that your definition of God is a concept of moral, emotional and ethical authority. But do you really feel that humans cannot possibly make a working society based off of purely secular values? I think it's not entirely implausible. There doesn't exactly have to be ultimate authority in moral/ethical decision making.

Sure, there might be no afterlife, but it definitely doesn't mean that our lives are meaningless. Meaning is derived from both the impact of your actions on other people and how others remember you. It's not to entertain just your mind, but how you affect other people around you. And since man is a naturally social animal, I think that an altruistic meaning of life isn't an entirely irrational position. It is IMPOSSIBLE for society to totally lack at least some gratification, because man, even introverted ones, seek constant contact with other human beings.

Furthermore, because man lives and derives meanning from other humans, no matter what the status of existence of a higher power is, the question of God is thus irrelevant.

However, I do not deny the existence of faith. We all require faith. I personally put my faith in science and in the inherent altruistic intentions of humanity.

(Note: And your position was very well written by the way).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728
:beam:

I am God! ~D

[lancelot]

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.


I really dont understand this desperate need to find some higher power behind everything, pulling the strings' as it were. Perhaps we did evolve out of an explosion or a puddle...perhaps it is that mundane...

And you say 'It exists' which implies that a someone or autonomous something had a direct hand in our universe's creation...perhaps the universe is a mistake or the least probable outcome in a random chain of events...



Let me try to explain God in a rational way.

God does not exist. However, I believe in It- more specifically, in Him, the male aspect of God. You see, the most plausible theory of God for me is that God is Life, and Life is God; but the two do not exist in the same way. They have interactions, but they are effectively impossible to comprehend. One example , though, may be how humans apparently may have eradicated all of the sentient apes, so that the human genus would have no competition: this may have been a drive stemming from the newly-sentient God, who saw a threat to Its existence and drove Humanity to destroy this threat, as It destroyed the threat on Its level. It was competing with other Gods, and It won.

Er...what? That makes no sense.

God is life and sent his killer humans to eradicate monkeys in a effort to give the finger to other gods????


I believe Thor was mad at Cerberus for stealing his lunch money so he gave him a wack over the head with his hammer, which in turn got Cerberus so mad he exploded and formed the universe. There- job done. Existence explained. :dizzy2:

[Spetulhu]

You might wish to read what someone more critical has to say about hogwash like Intelligent Design before declaring for a higher power.

"When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended "prediction" which is incapable of ever saying "no, we won't see that" is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is "intelligent design" theory in a nutshell: completely useless."

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesignIsUseless.shtml

[Ronin]

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

Csar --> Whats wrong with him being Catholic? :2thumbsup:

to say that "the world was created through science" is a wrong position....the creation of the world was a natural process (I say this because I have never seen any proof of an unnactural process occuring), science is merely a model we use to try and understand the natural processes...

[BDC]

Claiming the universe is too complex to have been created without a god isn't going anywhere. You just shift everything up a level. Who made god? If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, so does god, who was presumeably just as complex. And that needs a creator... And so forth forever.

[Jubilation T Cornpone]

You really needn't look any further than 'Red Dwarf' for an answer. Kryten summed it up nicely: 'Human Heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!'

The only annoying thing is that when you all finally do die and nothing happens, none of you will actually realise it!

[Andres]

I am God! ~D

No, I am! Your moderating powers are derived from your True Lord, AndresTheCunning. But I'm too lazy to moderate myself. That's why I have slaves like you :whip: Making you believe you are a God just makes it easier for me WAHAHAHAA!

On topic now:

Imho, the existence of a God is more a question of believing then empiric studies.

You believe or you don't believe. Simple.

On a side note: Why not reverse the question? Prove to me there is no God.

[Devastatin Dave]

I am God! ~D
Can I have a puppy then, O' Lord?:bow:

[caravel]

This reminds me of a conversation that the Caravel had with one of those religious street pester'ers a few months ago.


*Caravel walking down city centre street*

Young man: "excuse me?"

*Caravel stops in his tracks*

Caravel: "alright?"

Young man: "I'm representing the church of <some cult or other> and...

Caravel: "whooaaaaa.... I may as well stop you there. Not-into-religion-sorry-bye"

Young man: "could you tell me why?"

Caravel: Well for one thing there's no proof that god exists is there?"

Young man: "well there's the bible..."

Caravel: "ha..."

Young man: "and there's faith..."

*continues to explain about his particular brand of religion*

Caravel: "Well I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. I subscribe to the idea that we're biological beings powered by little electrical impulses that shoot about our body sending signals... ...when it comes to shutdown time there's no coming back, so you have to live this life and make the best of it because it's the only life you have. I'm not about to waste it messing around in a cult..."

Young man: "that's a really sad and negative approach, my life was really sad and empty and then I found god and love and now I'm..."

Caravel: "Well... my life is not empty, nor incomplete, I have love, but not god, nor do I feel the need to subscribe to/invent a fictional diety in order to achieve "inner piece", discipline nor happiness. I can be a good person within my own right without resorting to religion. Those people that need religion as a discipline to achieve happiness... ell they have their own issues. In view of this I feel that your religion has nothing to offer me... bye now...

Young man: Ok bye *waves his 'handbook thingy*.

The point is that he needed it for some reason or other. And that's often the case. Either people need it because of some past trauma/event in their lives, or their culture/system/family forces it down their throats from birth. In times of plenty religion often goes down the toilet because people don't need it. Which is when the fanatics surface. The sad bastards, that because they don't have a life, don't want anyone else to have one either. In times of plenty people begin to think for themselves and see it for the fiction it is. Look for poverty in the world and some religious movement or other will be close by. This is why I don't believe that religion is a choice, moreso a deception, an illusion even. If I was born and raised by hindus it is likely I'd be a hindu for life. If born and raised by atheists I'd probably be an atheist for life. If I converted it would be because someone influenced me to do so, at a time when I was in an impressionable state. And because I felt like deceiving myself in order to be part of a group or club.

[Reverend Joe]

Er...what? That makes no sense.

God is life and sent his killer humans to eradicate monkeys in a effort to give the finger to other gods????


I believe Thor was mad at Cerberus for stealing his lunch money so he gave him a wack over the head with his hammer, which in turn got Cerberus so mad he exploded and formed the universe. There- job done. Existence explained. :dizzy2:
That's a tiny part of my own religious beliefs. And when I say "religion", I use a much looser form of the word than Divinus does; my version of Religion is simply a complex system of metaphysical and ethical beliefs; each person can have his own religion. I have my own, and it certainly has made life a lot more interesting.

But it is not really necessary. My main point was that I worry that DemonArchangel was dismissing God and religion for the worng reasons; but it appears he is not. He has his own religion. He si thinking for himself. :2thumbsup:


(I hope.)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
~Woody Allen

[Prince of the Poodles]

Originally Posted by lancelot
So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?

Just as mental as any of the theories out there today. 8)

[DemonArchangel]

But it is not really necessary. My main point was that I worry that DemonArchangel was dismissing God and religion for the worng reasons; but it appears he is not. He has his own religion. He is thinking for himself. :2thumbsup:

(I hope.)

I really do hope that I'm thinking for myself. I really don't like thinking for other people, it's really a drain on the brain.

[yesdachi]

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
~Woody Allen
Thats Great! :laugh4:

"How can I believe in God when just last week I nailed my sack to the roof with a nail gun to stop myself from falling 20 feet?"
~bad karma guy from another thread

The best, possibility the only proof that a there is a god is in the babe thread, no way could that have been made without a divine plan (see hunk thread to view the devils contribution) ~D. So take back your faithless words least Thor smite you with his mighty hammer!

[Claudius the God]

Re: on the definition of atheism:


One who denies the existence of god...


this simple definition supposes that there is in fact one or more gods or deities which the atheist is denying - this definition by nature makes Atheists look bad and makes the term 'Atheist' almost derogatory.

I offer a better definition of Atheism:

The simple absence of belief in deities.

this definition neither supposes that deities do or do not exist, and defines the Atheist viewpoint on a neutral framework of reality.

I myself am a Humanist...



This description seems to me to be a reasonable one for Ignosticism:

"Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored
...
For most purposes, this view may be considered a form of agnosticism (sometimes referred to as "apathetic agnosticism"), and falls under the general category of nontheism. But it is a particular form. From this approach, the "I don't know" of agnosticism ceases to mean "I don't know if God exists or not" and becomes "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic is justified in ignoring putative arguments for or against.
...
The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against."

[Samurai Waki]

I have never met a man in battle who didn't believe in god ~;)

[Claudius the God]

"There are no Atheists in Foxholes" is not an argument against Atheists, It's an argument against Foxholes!

[Duke Malcolm]

even posing the question is the first mistake.

think about it.....if nobody had told you about "God"...would the concept even have come into your head?
if it isn´t a question that naturally comes to you what is the point of it....?

But surely, therefore, at some point in human history someone must have been told about God for the idea to come into his head?

[Mongoose]

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".

"God created the universe. God just exists."

*Ockhams Razor*

"The universe just exists"

There. I got rid of the unneeded term.:smash:

[Papewaio]

But surely, therefore, at some point in human history someone must have been told about God for the idea to come into his head?

No really, most stone age style tribes believe in animal, tree and other nature spirits which are often stylised as half animal / half human (aboroginal australian, eygptian mythology) to explain how the world was created around them and how things interact. As the settle down and their soceities grow the spirits tend to become more powerful and more humanlike. Eventually they become a pantheon of gods who have specific powers of nature and can swap between human and natural phenomena. The trend continues as the societies stay more settled and it normally drops down briefly to having a pair of gods (male and female) who respectively look after different aspects. And then this situation becomes a single god in charge of everything that we don't understand...

[IrishArmenian]

As long as you don't cause harm, I couldn't care less. However, faith is believing despite a lack of evidence. If it was easy, it would not be much of a challenge now would it?

[GoreBag]

If it was easy, it would not be much of a challenge now would it?

I'm not sure I follow.

[IrishArmenian]

My belief is that this life is a challnge to prove oneself. My apologies for not clarifying.

[macsen rufus]

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Errr...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Hmmm .... I... errr....."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"I don't really know, for sure...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"OH! GOD MADE EVERYTHING AND HE EATS LITTLE BOYS WHO ASK UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS!!! Now go away and shut up and leave me alone..."

[sharrukin]

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Errr...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Hmmm .... I... errr....."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"I don't really know, for sure...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"OH! GOD MADE EVERYTHING AND HE EATS LITTLE BOYS WHO ASK UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS!!! Now go away and shut up and leave me alone..."

"Let me ask you learned scholar... where does everything come from?"

"Errr.... from the Big Bang"

"Well learned scholar... where did the Big Bang come from?"

"Hmmm .... I... errr..... from a Singularity"

"Learned scholar, one more question if I may... where did the Singularity come from?"

"I don't really know, for sure.... it was Imaginary Time. A time before time, when there was no such thing as the passage of time"

"Well, learned scholar... without space, and without time, how can an event be said to have actually taken place? Are you saying the entire universe simply popped into existence, magically, for no actual reason at all?"

"THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE WAS A SINGULARITY ALL INFORMATION FROM BEFORE THE BIG BANG WAS LOST AND QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO BEFORE THE BIG BANG ARE SCIENTIFICALLY MEANINGLESS. Now go away and shut up and leave me alone..."

[BDC]

So what do we learn? Humans can't cope with questions that don't follow the rules they live in. So when there's no time or space, no one is going to be able to help you much.

Hence why quantum theory is kind of messed up still.

[Puzz3D]

Vacuum Genesis

"The universe may have begun in a state of perfect symmetry. The theory says that matter rose out of energy while the early universe was expanding, and cooling that form arose from formlessness like ice crystals congealing in a freezing pond. The mathematical symmetries that the unified theories have exposed at the foundations of natural law are more subtle and complex than those of snowflakes. But their principle is the same, they imply that we live in a crystallized universe of broken symmetries.

Perfect symmetry may be beautiful, but it is sterile; perfectly symmetrical space means nothingness. As soon as you introduce an object into that space, you break the symmetry thus creating a sense of location. There is a place where the object is and other places where it isn't, and out of that comes tumbling all of the geometry of space as we know it.

Perfectly symmetrical time means that nothing can happen. As soon as you have an event, then you break the symmetry and time begins to flow in a given direction. We live in a universe that is full of objects and events, and that means that the universe is imperfect. The symmetries of the universe we live in are broken. It may even be that we owe the very origin of our universe to the imperfection of the
breaking of the absolute symmetry of absolute emptiness. There is even a theory to this effect. It's called vacuum genesis, and it suggests that the universe began as a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum. Curious as it may seem, this idea violates none of the known laws of physics. We have seen how virtual particles come into existence all the time from a vacuum, and then fall back into non-existence. There appears to be no upper limit on the size and longevity of particles that can be created in this way. Its just possible that there might have been absolutely nothing out of which came a particle so potent that it could blossom into the entire universe. It is not very likely, but then it only had to happen once.

The theory of vacuum genesis is a new idea. Nobody knows whether or not it is true, but it does satisfy two of the criteria of a sound scientific theory: its seems at first so strange that it must be preposterous and, like the universe itself, the longer you get to know it the more beautiful it becomes.

Out of nothingness could have come the spark of genesis. As the universe expanded and cooled, darkness descended. Then light dawned anew with formation of the first stars. Each star is a nuclear furnace where matter is coaxed into releasing a little of the energy it inherited from the primordial fireball. Thanks to imperfection, to the fractured symmetries that produce differences among the particles and forces, atoms in their varieties could build themselves into molecules and molecules rise up in alliances as life, and life gives birth to thought and thoughts produce theories about the creation of the universe."

Timothy Ferris
“The Creation Of the Universe”
Documentary 1985.

[macsen rufus]

The theory of vacuum genesis is a new idea. Nobody knows whether or not it is true, but it does satisfy two of the criteria of a sound scientific theory: its seems at first so strange that it must be preposterous and, like the universe itself, the longer you get to know it the more beautiful it becomes.

This is GREAT poetry, but it sure ain't science and it ain't new!

I think you'll find testability and reproducibility a lot more pertinent to the soundness of a theory...

In fact Mr Ferris's exposition sounds like little more than a pseudo-scientificized retelling of the qabbalistic doctrine of the descent of the sephiroth from the ain soph aur - ie pure magical thinking....

[Don Corleone]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

A belief in God is called faith. By definition, faith is a belief in an uncertain concept that can neither be logically proven or disproven. Quietus' argument that the lack of proof is disproof aside, the whole idea of faith is that it requires a choice to believe, as using logic alone, either side of the proposition is equally likely.

God is hardly the only place that humans employ faith, by the way. If you're going to require hard empiricism on any sort of religious beliefs, I suggest you at least be intellectually consistent in your approach and employ the same rigor in all other matters of faith.

For example, you cannot possibly know whether those people in your life believe that you believe love you actually do. It's impossible to prove either way. Employing your logic, that means you must conclude that until they can actually prove their love, they must not love you.

Likewise, there's no such thing as goodwill among men. Everybody is really out to stick it to each other, and things like selflessness are really just an elaborate ploy to get a bigger payout down the road a spell.

I do applaud you for taking the agnosticism, versus the atheistic route. I've never understood atheism... so quick to demand proof in the existence of God, yet so willing to accept other much less believable propositions at face value. Currency, for example, is a promisary note and only has value because you believe in the government that guarantees it. Why don't atheists demand 'hard' currency, like gold or silver for everything?

[Lemur]

God is hardly the only place that humans employ faith, by the way. If you're going to require hard empiricism on any sort of religious beliefs, I suggest you at least be intellectually consistent in your approach and employ the same rigor in all other matters of faith.

For example, you cannot possibly know whether those people in your life believe that you believe love you actually do. It's impossible to prove either way. Employing your logic, that means you must conclude that until they can actually prove their love, they must not love you.
All of which goes to show that materialism is a raw, cold, hard place to live. I've never understood how anyone could get through their day on pure materialism, much less atheism.

[Don Corleone]

On a side-note, I'd like to leave you with the pragmatistic proof of the existence of God. It's not really a proof, it's a reason, based on motivated self-interest, and it was originally postulated by Soren Kirkegaard.

It's actually pretty simple. There's only 4 possible outcomes. Either God exists, or He doesn't. And either you believe in Him or you don't.

A) God exists, you believe in Him. Later on down the road, you meet Him and are rewarded for your faith.

B) God exists, you don't believe in Him. You die and for lifelong rejection of Him, you are cutoff from Him in the afterlife. Note, this isn't jugement or punishment... this is more along the lines of 'conditioning your soul to be ready to enter communion with Him upon death' or not.

C) God doesn't exist, you didn't believe in Him. Congratulations! You were right!!! Oh wait, there's no way you could possibly know that.

D) God doesn't exist, you believed in Him. You poor pathetic creature, you wasted your life when you could have been out yucking it up and having fun... oh wait, there's no way you could ever possibly know that either.

So, at the end of the day, any positive outcome for you requires a belief in God, and even then, it's still only a 50/50 proposition. But, if you choose not to believe, there's no positive outcome, you're 100% guaranteed to not enjoy life after death.

[Reverend Joe]

All of which goes to show that materialism is a raw, cold, hard place to live. I've never understood how anyone could get through their day on pure materialism, much less atheism.
It sucks. That's how you get through the day as a materialist.

That's why I decided to determine my own theory of God, especially after reading Kazantzakis. It's a wild theory, and any strict christain would freak out if I told them the whole shebang, but it is a lot more fun than being basically all alone.

[CBR]

Currency, for example, is a promisary note and only has value because you believe in the government that guarantees it. Why don't atheists demand 'hard' currency, like gold or silver for everything?
Because governments are part of the fact based world?


CBR

[Don Corleone]

Because governments are part of the fact based world?


CBR

There's plenty of countries out there that have renegged on their financial obligations, which in turn either reduces or eliminates the value in their currency. That's a fact. In fact, the only government in existence that has never had to drop a finanical obligation is the USA, dating all the way back to the articles of confederation. This is why the US dollar is the standard for currencies.

Yes, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the British pound won't be worth a pound when you go to collect. But it's not guaranteed. There's no guarantee that it, or a dollar, will be worth anything tomorrow. Our currencies only have worth because we choose to believe they do, i.e. we have faith in them.

[Don Corleone]

I may have misattributed the pragmatic proof of the existence of God. It may have been the honorable Blaise Pascal that is responsible for this articulate little gem. I'll have to do some research and will update when I can.

Indeed, it would turn out that my High School religion teacher was wrong. The argument made above is my paraphrasing of "Pascal's wager". What's more, it wasn't intended to be a 'reason' to just go ahead and believe. Blaise Pascal formulated the argument as a reason for 'considering' the existence of God, apparently many agnostics of his day thought the whole question to be pointless in the first place. My apologies to all.

[Banquo's Ghost]

All of which goes to show that materialism is a raw, cold, hard place to live. I've never understood how anyone could get through their day on pure materialism, much less atheism.

Should you have time, it might be worth you reading Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" to get an understanding. I'm not trying to challenge your faith, just give you an insight into a philosophy in which happiness can be derived without recourse to a deity.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I may have misattributed the pragmatic proof of the existence of God. It may have been the honorable Blaise Pascal that is responsible for this articulate little gem. I'll have to do some research and will update when I can.

It was Pascal, and it's a neat argument. My major problem with it is that it is dependent on a Christian/Biblical god or afterlife concept and most religion doesn't require just a passive belief, but an active life according to their rules to get the big reward.

That's my problem in general with 'proofs' of the supernatural. Throughout history and between cultures, whilst there are sometimes superficial similarities, the differences between what the afterlife is and how you qualify are often contradictory.

Very few devout, peaceful Christians would get into Valhalla, for example. Which is the right god for us to believe in as our Pascalian insurance policy? Rapacious, uncaring Woden or loving Jesus? Or any of the thousands of other tree spirits through L.Ron Hubbards that humans have conjured over the years? Some people think I get to go to heaven by blowing myself up with assorted small children and others by forgiving the guy who just did that to my wife and daughter. Whose god is right, and what does his heaven look like if it's full of the bombers?

:shrug:

[CBR]

Our currencies only have worth because we choose to believe they do, i.e. we have faith in them.
And what does having faith in fact based elements of our society have to do with not believing in supernatural beings? Do you think an atheist cant trust other people? or that an atheist cant say to himself "I believe I wont get hit by a truck tomorrow" although he doesnt know for sure?


CBR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

On a side-note, I'd like to leave you with the pragmatistic proof of the existence of God. It's not really a proof, it's a reason, based on motivated self-interest, and it was originally postulated by Soren Kirkegaard.

It's actually pretty simple. There's only 4 possible outcomes. Either God exists, or He doesn't. And either you believe in Him or you don't.

A) God exists, you believe in Him. Later on down the road, you meet Him and are rewarded for your faith.

B) God exists, you don't believe in Him. You die and for lifelong rejection of Him, you are cutoff from Him in the afterlife. Note, this isn't jugement or punishment... this is more along the lines of 'conditioning your soul to be ready to enter communion with Him upon death' or not.

C) God doesn't exist, you didn't believe in Him. Congratulations! You were right!!! Oh wait, there's no way you could possibly know that.

D) God doesn't exist, you believed in Him. You poor pathetic creature, you wasted your life when you could have been out yucking it up and having fun... oh wait, there's no way you could ever possibly know that either.

So, at the end of the day, any positive outcome for you requires a belief in God, and even then, it's still only a 50/50 proposition. But, if you choose not to believe, there's no positive outcome, you're 100% guaranteed to not enjoy life after death.

Hmm that doesn't follow. He leaves out lots of possibilities.

E) God exists, you believed in him, he condemns you to burn in an eternal lake of fire because he's actually a sadist with a twisted sense of humor

D) God exists, you didn't believe in him, he randomly puts you up in a rundown hotel near the heavenly ocean resort and you spend the rest of eternity puttering around playing mini golf and watching old movies.

etc

Even without these his argument is incorrect since being atheist means you get to sleep late on sunday mornings. And that's really all it means you know, it's not like a philosophy or belief system or way of life like some people say.


For example, you cannot possibly know whether those people in your life believe that you believe love you actually do. It's impossible to prove either way. Employing your logic, that means you must conclude that until they can actually prove their love, they must not love you.

So, employing your logic, you should believe that I am god, because it can't be proven either way?

[Don Corleone]

I think an atheist can have faith in non-divine phenomena. I find it inconsistent that they do. Currency is not 'fact based'. As I said above, it is an expression of confidence in the future stability of said government's coffers and it's ability to repay you. By it's very nature, this is speculation and is not 'fact' based. A fact is a known detail. It is not known that the US will not default on it's treasury bills or refuse to honor it's own currency next year.

[Don Corleone]

Hmm that doesn't follow. He leaves out lots of possibilities.

E) God exists, you believed in him, he condemns you to burn in an eternal lake of fire because he's actually a sadist with a twisted sense of humor

D) God exists, you didn't believe in him, he randomly puts you up in a rundown hotel near the heavenly ocean resort and you spend the rest of eternity puttering around playing mini golf and watching old movies.

etc

Even without these his argument is incorrect since being atheist means you get to sleep late on sunday mornings. And that's really all it means you know, it's not like a philosophy or belief system or way of life like some people say.

As I mentioned when I corrected myself, I also incorrectly described the argument as a defense of faith. It is not and was not intended to be. Blaise Pascal was defending the value of asking the question in the first place. Damn you, James Leon. Not really, but get it right next time!

:bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As I mentioned when I corrected myself, I also incorrectly described the argument as a defense of faith. It is not and was not intended to be. Blaise Pascal was defending the value of asking the question in the first place. Damn you, James Leon. Not really, but get it right next time!

:bow:

Ah ok. Didn't read that far. Amusing argument anyway.


I think an atheist can have faith in non-divine phenomena. I find it inconsistent that they do. Currency is not 'fact based'. As I said above, it is an expression of confidence in the future stability of said government's coffers and it's ability to repay you. By it's very nature, this is speculation and is not 'fact' based. A fact is a known detail. It is not known that the US will not default on it's treasury bills or refuse to honor it's own currency next year.

I see no reason to distrust everything that can't be proven. I can't speak for other people but my reason for not believing in god isn't that he can't be proven, it's how I was raised. There's an infinite number of things that can't be proven or disproven. Most can be dismissed as irrelevent (I am god, the whole world is an illusion etc). I place religion in among those. I think having an "I'm not sure" position for all of these would be unnatural and for me dishonest. Yes, I'm sure we don't actually live in the Matrix.

Science doesn't require any emotional commitment. I believe in say, the big bang, but I could care less* if it's actully true.

* :tongue3:

[Don Corleone]

Well, if we really want to get into semantics, and sometimes it's important, you don't believe in the theory of the big bang, you hold it to be true. Belief implies faith, and science is supposed to be immune from faith. The scientific method requires skepticism of just about everything, and at the end of the day, you simply adhere to the most likely explanation of phenomenon as true.

Religious belief requires faith of things unknowable. Scientific theories do not claim that the knowledge is unknowable, only that we don't have complete knowledge at this time.

[CBR]

I think an atheist can have faith in non-divine phenomena. I find it inconsistent that they do.
Why?


Currency is not 'fact based'
Its certainly not faith based. My local store unfortunately doesnt accept anything but cash or credit card anyway, so gold is out :clown:

But I still dont see what trust in currency has to do with not believing in supernatural beings. Maybe you are confusing atheism with say paranoia?


CBR

[DemonArchangel]

A belief in God is called faith. By definition, faith is a belief in an uncertain concept that can neither be logically proven or disproven. Quietus' argument that the lack of proof is disproof aside, the whole idea of faith is that it requires a choice to believe, as using logic alone, either side of the proposition is equally likely.

God is hardly the only place that humans employ faith, by the way. If you're going to require hard empiricism on any sort of religious beliefs, I suggest you at least be intellectually consistent in your approach and employ the same rigor in all other matters of faith.

*SNIP*

I don't really know how the universe was created really, or how/why we exist. In the beginning, as far as I know, there just....was. Until somebody can explain it better to me, I will keep asking.

I don't really have faith in my fellow man (although sometimes, I try to), and I will use whatever currency is available for me to use for expediency's sake.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, if we really want to get into semantics, and sometimes it's important, you don't believe in the theory of the big bang, you hold it to be true. Belief implies faith, and science is supposed to be immune from faith. The scientific method requires skepticism of just about everything, and at the end of the day, you simply adhere to the most likely explanation of phenomenon as true.

Religious belief requires faith of things unknowable. Scientific theories do not claim that the knowledge is unknowable, only that we don't have complete knowledge at this time.


Science is immune from faith. We have a lot of evidence proving that the Big Bang happened.

Now what happened before the the Big Bang...that's a whole other issue.

And Don, you never defined God for me (one of the conditions for you starting an argument with me).

[Don Corleone]

Sorry, DA, I missed that blurb. And I'm not trying to argue with you, if it appears that I am, I'm being unusually obtuse, even for me.

I apologize for the length of this, but my defintion of what I believe is not a simple answer. Feel free to quit reading at any point.

I have rather traditionalist Chrisitan views of the identity of God, primarly stemming from the Trinity as revealed in the Bible and properly defined in the Nicene creed. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Each of the three of them sharing a common nature, yet existing as three separate entities.

God the Parent (now here's where I become a heretic, because I frequently pray to God the Father as God the Mother, I cannot believe in God the Father as uniquely male). This would be the source of life and all that is. God the Father/Mother has personal qualities, but doesn't exist as a unique person, as you or I do or Jesus does. More the sum total of all divinity.

God the Son. God incarnate. Spiritually timeless, but lived physically as a human being from approximately 7-4 B.C. to 26-29 A.D. Was made flesh to come to Earth and offer Himself as a perfect sacrafice to make ammends for our sins, thus depriving the devil dominion over us at the end of our physical lives here on Earth. Used the time leading up to said sacrafice to enhance our understanding of God, our purpose and role here in life and what God expects of us.

God the Holy Spirit: The Will of God made phyically manifest here on Earth. Be it a pillar of fire, a dove, what have you, it is God's decision to intervene directly here on Earth (something I don't believe God does very often).

I believe God created us because that is the nature of God, to create. We are God's ulitmate creation but one that eventually severed our ties with God, thus necessitating the need for Jesus' sacrafice. We're the little brother that fell down the well. In Eastern religions, there's a strong undercurrent of belief that we are in Hell. If you define Hell as a separation from God, then I agree with this. We are 'marooned' in this temporal existence due to our pride and hubris.

I believe in Heaven and Hell, but I don't believe in them as reward/punishment. When you die, I believe the divine spark that's in each of us continues on. Now, you either have conditioned your soul through your existence here on Earth to be prepared to enter communion with all the other souls in Heaven (and ultimately, return to communion with God) or you haven't, and you're forever locked out of the chance to rejoin. Not as punishment, but because it's of a different nature than you are.

I believe this 'conditioning of the soul' is a lot like physical conditioning. Imagine the communion of heaven to be like a marathon, run by a group of people running in a pack. If you've been training, you can run right along with them and not get tired. But if you're out of shape, you won't even want to. The pack will leave you behind, and you're on your own. I think it is the realization of this new reality that Biblical authors tried to metaphorically describe as eternal suffering, because once your soul realizes it's not going back where it belongs, it will ache for eternity. But I don't believe in lakes of fire or flame whips. The best way I can describe Hell, as I understand it is thus: Imagine being at a family party. Everybody in your family is overflowing with joy. Happy to see each other, happy to be together. Oblivious to the world outside. This party is taking place in a well-lit solid glass house. Outside, it's the dead of winter... dark, forbidding and chilling to the bone. For one reason or another: anger, shame, jealousy... you storm out and go outside. When you try to get back in, you realize there's no door. You're outside, in the cold and the dark, and it appears like your family has forgotten who you are. They're merrily going along without you. Now take that feeling and multply it by a million, and that's the 'damnation moment', the moment the soul realizes it will never reach Heaven.

[DemonArchangel]

To reiterate Banquo's point Don:

You sure you worshiping the correct God? There are many of them and you might not be right.

[Don Corleone]

It is Banquo's contention that there are many. I don't see things the same way. I don't view a huge pantheon and we have a choice whether we want to pledge our allegiance to Zeus or Ra or Raven. But yes, I'm pretty sure I'm worshiping God in a manner God finds pleasing (at least I hope I am).

[Kralizec]

DC: following the logic of Pascals wager still leaves you with the question wich particular religion is in the right.

[Ice]

DC: following the logic of Pascals wager still leaves you with the question wich particular religion is in the right.

That question is impossible to answer, until the time it is revealed.

It all boils down to what you believe, what you finding fitting, and which one appeals to you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That question is impossible to answer, until the time it is revealed.

It all boils down to what you believe, what you finding fitting, and which one appeals to you.

If it were a matter only of your personal faith, that would be fine. But almost all modern religions feel it necessary to involve themselves in other people's morals and indeed politics.

Thus the question is entirely valid, and requires an answer. If Rupert's god tells me I should despise homosexuals, but Fred's god tells me I should cuddle one on a daily basis, and both try to influence my political representative, how do I know which is right? Which is my moral compass?

@ Don, I don't contend that there are many gods but that mankind has conceived of many gods and spirits. Most of these impose different requirements on the believer. The "logical" position that it is better/safer to believe in a god as an insurance policy is fallacious, since most of them demand one does something to earn the reward. If one does the wrong thing, even for the right reasons, many of these jealous gods (yours being a prime example, tolerating none but he) visit eternal punishment.

Frankly, I don't know why tree spirits fell out of vogue. IIRC they were really hot chicks with strategically placed leaves (a forest being kinda like a Beirut's Ultimate Fantasy Babe thread) and you can see trees.

[Cowhead418]

You really needn't look any further than 'Red Dwarf' for an answer. Kryten summed it up nicely: 'Human Heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!'

The only annoying thing is that when you all finally do die and nothing happens, none of you will actually realise it!Hey! Someone with my exact views! There are a few points/views I'd like to make/raise:

@ Sasaki - I'm atheist but I still can't sleep in because I work on Sundays! There, your divinity is disproved.:beam:

@ DC - I have heard this argument several times. To put it in other words, you are telling me that I should believe in God because it is the convenient thing to do. I will not dispute this notion, though I think this argument is absurd. Yes, I would like to believe that after I die I will go to a paradise and everything will be fine and dandy. However, life rarely works out that way and I fail to see why I should make an exception here. There are many negative aspects of life that I'd like to not believe in, but sadly there is often no alternative option. Yes, many of these aspects are concrete and religion is not, but this argument just provides evidence to my theory that people believe in Heaven because they can't face up to the possibility that there is not happiness after death. To me it is why fairy tales are so popular. And it is also why you will sad endings are much rarer in books and movies. People just won't accept a 'bad' ending.

@ lancelot - it is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? I was raised Roman Catholic, and they preach that God's love is unconditional, and that he is very forgiving of even the most extreme of sins. Yet Christians hold the belief that the simple act of disputing the existence of said God is enough to damn you to the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity. I've even heard some Christians say that Gandhi is in Hell just for choosing not to believe in the Christian God. It doesn't paint a very loving or forgiving picture of God, does it? It seems to me that this God is not loving after all but actually evil and intolerant.

Finally, @ GB - I agree 100%. I do not believe there is a God and the arguments about the creation of the universe are absurd because the same arguments could be used against the existence of God. Also, my view of life after death is that there is none. After you die you go back to the same state you were before you were conceived - oblivion. Unfortunately, in this view, it means that we will never actually know if God existed, because after death we won't be able to say or think: "Oh, I guess I was wrong/right after all." On the bright side, at least we won't be able to think: "Well, this really sucks." Yes, it is quite a pessimistic view because we won't actually discover what death brings, and I hope it doesn't occur this way, but my beliefs are what they are.

[Quietus]

Never heard of Ignosticism before but I've had similar arguments months ago.

Understanding is a function of knowledge. No knowledge, no understanding. Hence one cannot define anything without any knowledge of it.

Example:
1) Define "Yfkgmaoggwokf". Try.
a) You have no knowledge nor any proof of "Yfkgmaoggwokf".
b) You can't define it either.
c) You can't claim it exists.

However, if you replace it with "GOD":
1) Define "God". Well?
a) You have no knowledge or proof of "God"
but magically,
b) God is the creator of the universe etc etc.
c) and God exists.

:skull:

[Papewaio]

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

Exhibit A:
The scratch marks on my back... :2thumbsup: :clown:

I'll let you fill in the dots.

[BDC]

To reiterate Banquo's point Don:

You sure you worshiping the correct God? There are many of them and you might not be right.
Could be a lot of really confused and annoyed looking pacifist Buddhist monks in Valhalla...

[macsen rufus]

Could be a lot of really confused and annoyed looking pacifist Buddhist monks in Valhalla...

:laugh4: :laugh4: Thanks, BDC, for the best mental image in the thread so far!:viking:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Here's what I don't get about agnosticism:

If you are having a conversation with someone and they asked you what you thought of the Flying Spaghetti monster, would you really say "I'm sorry, but due to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not subject to our causal laws and such, I cannot ascertain whether or not His Noodliness exists"? I think the most rational answer there would be "No".

Or how about (for some of the more conservative people): If someone asked you if you were actually a woman trapped in a mans body would you really say "I'm not sure, I can't prove it one way or another, it is a definite possibility"? Even if you said that would you really be thinking that?

[Lemur]

Sasaki, I think it's more about humility than anything else. When you consider how vast and mysterious our universe is, it makes more sense to say "I'm open to the possibility," than to say "There is no God." Anybody with half a brain and a healthy dollop of imagination can surmise that there's more to life than can be easily perceived or measured.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. This isn't a good or bad thing, it just is. To a greater or lesser extent, we are all bound by limitations of our minds, imaginations, and perspectives. There's no harm in being humble, and admitting that we don't know everything, and by virtue of our nature we can't know everything.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sasaki, I think it's more about humility than anything else. When you consider how vast and mysterious our universe is, it makes more sense to say "I'm open to the possibility," than to say "There is no God." Anybody with half a brain and a healthy dollop of imagination can surmise that there's more to life than can be easily perceived or measured.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. This isn't a good or bad thing, it just is. To a greater or lesser extent, we are all bound by limitations of our minds, imaginations, and perspectives. There's no harm in being humble, and admitting that we don't know everything, and by virtue of our nature we can't know everything.

How do you know we can't know everything? You can't prove that. That's the other problem with Agnosticism. They say you can't prove or disprove god, but they never prove that you can't prove or disprove god. It's an objection to taking a firm position on god, and yet it itself is a firm position. I don't get it.

Also, I don't think the universe is that vast or mysterious.


edit: you did answer my question as to why someone would say that in conversation though. I don't see that personally though. And I still don't get the philisophical position.

[Lemur]

I don't think the universe is that vast or mysterious.
Eh? Are we talking about the same universe? :inquisitive:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Eh? Are we talking about the same universe? :inquisitive:

Maybe. You can't prove the universe is vast :tongue3:

[Lemur]

I think I've already made my feelings clear about the use of the word "prove" in this context. Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.

Call it Lemur's Corollary to Godwin's Law.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think I've already made my feelings clear about the use of the word "prove" in this context. Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.

Call it Lemur's Corollary to Godwin's Law.

Yes, agnosticism essentially rejects proof entirely, saying nothing can be proven, but it's basis for rejecting proof is no more sound than claiming there is no god.

[Lemur]

Just to be absolutely clear -- I'm not rejecting proof as a tool or a concept. I'm saying that its use as a demand or offering in a chat board context is not only counter-productive, but detrimental to the argument of the user. I'm classifying "prove" in the chat board context much the way "Nazi" gets classified in the most common readings of Godwin's Law.

There's a much ruder version of what I'm trying to formulate, but it wouldn't be appropriate for the Org.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree sure, but you can't discuss Agnosticism without using "prove". It's like trying to discuss republicans without using the word "pork".

[Mithrandir]

Eh? Are we talking about the same universe? :inquisitive:

I must agree with Sasaki. If you would've told someone from medieval times that we could travel to the moon, light actually has weight, there are colours which the eyes can't see, that certain microbes can kill a person etc. etc. etc. they would've said you were insane and burnt you at the stakes.

Point I want to make, in 'just' a 1000 years (and especially the last 200 years) sience has taken a giant leap. I don't think that, unless humanity is destroyed soon [very possible] this trend will stop. Thus in a few hundred years we will have massive amounts more knowledge about the universe, maybe then we'll finally get rid of all those silly religion threads :laugh4:

[Lemur]

I guess my belief is that knowledge is fractal, and that the more we learn, the more we'll discover we don't know. Which is not in any way to imply that it's a zero-sum game -- far from it. More knowledge is great! Huzzah for science!

But how many physicists have predicted the "end of physics"? How many careers have been flushed down the bottomless hole known as the Grand Unified Theory?

We should learn everything we can, but we will never learn everything. Prove me wrong!:laugh4:

[Mithrandir]

We should learn everything we can, but we will never learn everything. Prove me wrong!:laugh4:

No problem, after about 18 reïncarnations we can come here and discuss the fact that there's no god...

There's just reïncarnation which enables us to discuss this topic till the end of days ~D.

[Papewaio]

I
But how many physicists have predicted the "end of physics"? How many careers have been flushed down the bottomless hole known as the Grand Unified Theory?

So how many physicts have dropped their GUTs?

=][=

I agree that science appears to be fractal, but fractals have simple explanations (their formulas are simple, even if the output is infinite in complexity).

=][=


Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.

Two problems I have with this. Specifically why bother posting anything at all if you cannot get any closer to a proof/truth/understanding/etc?

Secondly your own arguement if correct will form a paradox and disproves itself. :wall:

[Lemur]

Two problems I have with this. Specifically why bother posting anything at all if you cannot get any closer to a proof/truth/understanding/etc?
Why bother posting? Certainly not to prove anything. Is anybody going to "prove" evolution to Navarros? There are no rules as such, no way to declare something proved or disproved, and no way to reach someone who has an entrenched position. Rather, I see this as spirited conversation, with ebbs and flows. And I like it that way. I'd much rather be in a good conversation than in a debate.

Secondly your own arguement if correct will form a paradox and disproves itself. :wall:
All Cretans are liars? Not exactly. I'm asserting that proof is an irrelevant concept in this context. And I'm not trying to prove it.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Of course there's a god...It's me..I realized it a while back when I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself.


Thank you I'll sign autographs after the show...

[Mithrandir]

Of course there's a god...It's me..I realized it a while back when I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself.


:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Vuk]

There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith.

[AntiochusIII]

There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith....

By definition, logic and faith are two mutually exclusive things. Therefore, it cannot be a "logical conclusion that there is a God" and "gets down to a conviction of faith" at the same time, sorry.

If you ask me, I believe that there aren't any bloody gods to claim superiority over me. There are, however, hobbits, elves, morlocks, Argonians, and Smarties -- all of which are proven to exist and are related to the humanfolk one way or another.

[Red Peasant]

I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.

It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.

Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?

Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?

Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt.

[Vuk]

...

By definition, logic and faith are two mutually exclusive things. Therefore, it cannot be a "logical conclusion that there is a God" and "gets down to a conviction of faith" at the same time, sorry.

If you ask me, I believe that there aren't any bloody gods to claim superiority over me. There are, however, hobbits, elves, morlocks, Argonians, and Smarties -- all of which are proven to exist and are related to the humanfolk one way or another.

The logic that I'm refering to is that if there is no other way for the earth to have come into existance, than it must have been through a god, since the earth is in existence! (I just stated that I could prove any other theory wrong).

[Cowhead418]

The logic that I'm refering to is that if there is no other way for the earth to have come into existance, than it must have been through a god, since the earth is in existence! (I just stated that I could prove any other theory wrong).This argument is absurd. How did God come into existance? Fight fire with fire, I say. The exact arguments you are using for the existance of God I can use against the existance of God.

[Red Peasant]

There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith.

Well, when a theist resorts to the old 'Faith' tactic, then this is an admission that you can't prove the existence of God ... although they will usually still try if pressed. Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.

[AntiochusIII]

I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.Wiki interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)

However, Merriam-Webster does not recognize the word.

From what I can derive, it is a position in which explicitly declares the meaninglessness of the Big Question; whereas agnosticism in general dances around the topic with an "I'm not sure," Ignostics, in my interpretation, would say "I don't care."

In a way, it might be closer than Occam's Razor that it first appears.

[Vuk]

Well, when a theist resorts to the old 'Faith' tactic, then this is an admission that you can't prove the existence of God ... although they will usually still try if pressed. Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.

I said right off the bat that belief in God is a matter of faith!

'Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.'

Really? Are you just saying that or do you have faith in it (the belief that having faith is irrational)?
I would really like to here your theories! No, I wouldn't - I would REALLY REALLY like to!

[Vuk]

This argument is absurd. How did God come into existance? Fight fire with fire, I say. The exact arguments you are using for the existance of God I can use against the existance of God.

What! My arguement was not that God came into existense!!

As for Him coming into existence, He didn't! He has always existes and there for could never 'come' into existence!
If you don't want to believe it, don't! It is my personal conviction. Having spent many years studying the origin of life, and argueing AGAINST Christianity, I came to that conviction because al else seemed wrong! Not only that but the Bible seemed way to accurate for a book of Its years to NOT be divinely inspired!

[AntiochusIII]

'Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.'

Really? Are you just saying that or do you have faith in it (the belief that having faith is irrational)?
I would really like to here your theories! No, I wouldn't - I would REALLY REALLY like to!"Irrational" does not necessarily come with the negative connotation it has in everyday speech. In this particular case, it merely is an adjective to describe a position not supported by the use of logic, often referred to as "faith."

[Red Peasant]

Wiki interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)

However, Merriam-Webster does not recognize the word.

From what I can derive, it is a position in which explicitly declares the meaninglessness of the Big Question; whereas agnosticism in general dances around the topic with an "I'm not sure," Ignostics, in my interpretation, would say "I don't care."

In a way, it might be closer than Occam's Razor that it first appears.

Thanks.

OED doesn't recognize it either, but if people are using it then I suppose it exists. I like the 'apathetic agnosticism' definition, but as most agnostics I know are apathetic anyway the term would seem just a little redundant.

[Cowhead418]

What! My arguement was not that God came into existense!!

As for Him coming into existence, He didn't! He has always existes and there for could never 'come' into existence!
If you don't want to believe it, don't! It is my personal conviction. Having spent many years studying the origin of life, and argueing AGAINST Christianity, I came to that conviction because al else seemed wrong! Not only that but the Bible seemed way to accurate for a book of Its years to NOT be divinely inspired!But that doesn't make any bit of sense. How can something exist but not have a creation? How can something just have always existed? Why did "all else" seem wrong? Was it your personal conviction? Because if you are arguing with logic and rationality, then you can't possibly believe that God has always existed. I just don't understand how this could happen.

[Redleg]

But that doesn't make any bit of sense. How can something exist but not have a creation? How can something just have always existed? Why did "all else" seem wrong? Was it your personal conviction? Because if you are arguing with logic and rationality, then you can't possibly believe that God has always existed. I just don't understand how this could happen.

Your about to argue yourself into a circle.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah...if something can't exist without being created, than how does anything exist?

[Cowhead418]

Your about to argue yourself into a circle.Yes, I'm going to stop before it gets any more confusing...~:confused:


Yeah...if something can't exist without being created, than how does anything exist?Good point, it's just hard for me to imagine God always existing. When was there a beginning? How did this beginning come about? Why does God exist? Why does the universe exist? If there was no beginning, then how is this possible? Man, I have to stop...

[BDC]

If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.

[Red Peasant]

Your about to argue yourself into a circle.

The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.

Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.

[Redleg]

The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.

edit: you might want to read what I wrote - did I claim the theist arguement does not contain logical fallacies, or did I state something else? Are you attempting a strawman arguement by arguing a position that I did not claim in the first place?

And neither can you justify a claim as false by simply attempting to disprove existance by lack of evidence. That is also a major logical fallacy. So if you agree that the theist argument is one type of logical fallacy - you have to also realize attempting to disprove God's existance based upon lack of evidence of his existance is also a fallacuous postion to take.



Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.

Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.

I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.

[Red Peasant]

Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.

I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.

My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend. ~;)

As for your later assertions, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I will re-cap my earlier post as you clearly did not read it:

"I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.

It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods . The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.

Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?

Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?

Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but [I]they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt."

[BDC]

I think we have the next Richard Dawkins here. Only rather better at it already...

[Redleg]

My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend. ~;)


I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.

To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.

Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.

[Red Peasant]

I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.

To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.

Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.

Oh dear, I had to assume that you hadn't read the original post because it basically answered the position you accused me of assuming.

A theist states or assumes that something exists, i.e. God, which cannot be either quantitatively or qualitatively proven by any sensible criteria, therefore the onus is on him to find proof of God's existence. The atheist doesn't have to do this because the lack of such proof already supports his position.

You have a penchant for this 'Straw Man' chap I have noticed, but I can assure you that he exists only in your own mind, and you call him 'God'. ~;) :laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

Oh, and I am quite satisfied that my reasoning is valid. It may not ultimately be correct [Please no God, don't send me thereeeeeeee! :oops: ], but it ain't bogus.

[Redleg]

Oh dear, I had to assume that you hadn't read the original post because it basically answered the position you accused me of assuming.

It seems that your continuing your strawman arguement once again, pretty much the normal course of events for discussions concerning religion. For someone who attempted to strawman my statement into a logical fallacy that did not exist - you have demonstrated a penchant for making many different types of logical fallacies.

[Red Peasant]

Lol! Being a generous sort I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. A desperate tactic, yet quite useful in maintaining a completely untenable intellectual position. :beam:

[Redleg]

Lol! Being a generous sort I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. A desperate tactic, yet quite useful in maintaining a completely untenable intellectual position. :beam:


Tsk Tsk - it seems your still maintaining the strawman method of approaching an arguement. :dizzy2:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not a strawman dude, he just misinterpretted what you wrote.

[Redleg]

It's not a strawman dude, he just misinterpretted what you wrote.

Oh I could have some fun.........:dizzy2:

[Csargo]

Is this where you wanna be when Jesus comes back?:inquisitive:

[Red Peasant]

Tsk Tsk - it seems your still maintaining the strawman method of approaching an arguement. :dizzy2:

Most amusing Redleg. You persist with this 'Straw Man' accusation, bandying the term about as if it was some magical formula to ward off the evil of a reasoned argument. Yet, you never take the trouble to advance your own position any further, or evince any understanding of the term.

So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.

Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.

Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket. :laugh4:

[Cowhead418]

If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.Thank you. I was thinking along these lines, but I couldn't seem to put my thoughts into an understandable argument.:bow:

[Redleg]

Most amusing Redleg. You persist with this 'Straw Man' accusation, bandying the term about as if it was some magical formula to ward off the evil of a reasoned argument. Yet, you never take the trouble to advance your own position any further, or evince any understanding of the term.

Or could it be that you have not bothered to pay attention to my postion because you have trapped yourself in your own strawman. Your assuming that I have taken a postion on Ignosticism, which you will discover if you go back and read - I have not. What I have stated is that one can not prove existance based upon the lack of evidence of his non-existance, and the converse is true one can not disprove existance by the lack of evidence of its existance. If you had been paying attention you would of noticed that postion. In other words I have no desire to attempt to prove God's existance nor his non-existance, since it always ends with ad hominem statements, and ancedotal evidence would not constitute proof, because you did not observe it nor could you replicate it.


So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.

Yep, which you did, don't attempt to deny it. Shall we review your initial statement to me.




The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.

Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.

Where in my postion of your about to argue yourself into a circle did I state a postion on the existance of god... You took the strawman route because you did not understand the statement. Good show.




Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.

Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket. :laugh4:

Ah again with the strawman arguement. Rather lovely isn't. Your arguing against a postion that I have not taken, which is exactly what a strawman arguement is. Have a nice day....:smash:

[Red Peasant]

Well, there's no resolution to this, seeming as you are stuck in your 'Straw Man' wonderland. :dizzy2:

Ciao!

:laugh4:

[Sigurd]

If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.
Who is to say that God came first?

[Sigurd]

Well, there's no resolution to this, seeming as you are stuck in your 'Straw Man' wonderland. :dizzy2:

Ciao!

:laugh4:

I find it funny that you are belittling theist and agnostics saying that they are out of it, that atheism is the only logical choice considering Ockham’s methodological procedure.
I don’t know much about you Red Peasant but I might assume you are a student at Oxford. You seem to be regurgitating something a professor or lecturer might have said. You might even be one.. I don’t know.
It is funny how they always seem to drag religion into the scientific sphere where it does not belong.
You can’t use logic or a scientific methodology like Ockham’s on the metaphysical sphere that religion resides in.
Do you even know anything about Ockham? He was deeply religious himself being a friar and a great theologian.

The logical point of view if I should even dare to use that word is agnosticism, because that at least acknowledges the fact that religion and religious questions are metaphysical and hence not applicable to logic or science.
The answer to any such metaphysical question is: “There is no way of knowing”.

[Redleg]

Well, there's no resolution to this, seeming as you are stuck in your 'Straw Man' wonderland. :dizzy2:

Ciao!

:laugh4:

Warning a rebuttal in the same manner of ad hominem

Actually one should say that it is yourself stuck in denial, and I am rather amused by that.

[Claudius the God]

I simply find it completely absurd that some people look at the development of life and the universe and feel the need to give that development such an awful personality or character, based primarily on concepts of Sins and judgement of Sins (and calls it love and benevolence).

Seriously, just looking at the god of the Bible for the moment - here is a tyrant who approves of ritual human sacrifice, rape, child abuse, animal abuse, mass murder, slavery, discrimination against anyone who does not conform, and unthinking violence... and anyone who questions this God's 'unconditional love' gets sent to a special place where they are horribly tortured for all eternity... :skull: :whip:

If you don't believe me, then read the Bible... :book:

One can't try to disprove the existence of Deities any more than try to prove their existence; but common sense tells me that characterizing the development of life and the universe in this way is completely absurd. :thumbsdown:

to believe in this sort of 'God' is intellectually embarassing. :clown: