89 replies to this topic

[mikeinnaples]

As far as religion goes religious extremism never seems to make sense or bring any sort of benefit. Moderate religion though is a mix of social good and bad. So if you stand in the middle away from religion but allow for the positive aspects (the community aspect for example) then you seem to be in a more honest, accurate position.

Of course the true center also includes the overlap with atheists who won't deny possibility, but will not believe in something on faith alone without evidence. From the viewpoint of the true center, anyone following a religious belief strictly without allowing for other possibility is just as much an extremist as atheists who deny any possibility. Will you disagree with that?

[mikeinnaples]

@Shadowhawk - You should trying learning a bit from Lister in how to engage people in conversation. Assuming Lister isn't one of you multiple personalities that is.

[sthira]

Both theism and atheism are irrational. One ism, the athe, may be less brain dead and reasonable than that other violent, horrible ism, the the: RIP.

[DukeNukem]

Both theism and atheism are irrational. One ism, the athe, may be less brain dead and reasonable than that other violent, horrible ism, the the: RIP.

I don't follow this line of thinking at all.

And there's nothing irrational about atheism. The whole point of atheism IS rational belief. Not only is there zero evidence for gods, the whole idea of gods is silly and irrational.

I don't need much non-evidence, so to speak, to know that a tooth fairy doesn't exist.

This universe would be an entirely different place if gods invented it, and needed our worship. Thankfully, they don't exist, assuming they'd be anything like the horrendously flawed and unloving gods humans have always created.

[Lister]

As far as religion goes religious extremism never seems to make sense or bring any sort of benefit. Moderate religion though is a mix of social good and bad. So if you stand in the middle away from religion but allow for the positive aspects (the community aspect for example) then you seem to be in a more honest, accurate position.

Of course the true center also includes the overlap with atheists who won't deny possibility, but will not believe in something on faith alone without evidence. From the viewpoint of the true center, anyone following a religious belief strictly without allowing for other possibility is just as much an extremist as atheists who deny any possibility. Will you disagree with that?

Hmm... I don’t know if someone in the true center would be able to see extremism as easy as the vast majority of us (as I would imagine most of us are still pretty far away from the “true” center).

If you think about it what is the farthest away from any extremes? If you’re on the left then a larger amount of the right will “seem” extreme. Whereas if you’re on the right you may look at those same extreme peoples and think “What? They’re totally normal but just a bit off on some things”.

If you’re in the center you’re going to see... WAIT! ...ah now my argument is falling apart isn’t it? From the center those extreme rights aren’t as extreme but now the left has more extremes... Doh!

I guess in reality the center is likely to view just as many extremes as anyone at any point. Where I’m coming from is that when you’re in the center you’re able to take many of the positives from all sides and “hold” your ground when it comes to inaccuracies.

If I can argue for the benefit of abortion using Bible testament that’s probably going to be a lot more effective to many religious folks than throwing Logic Bombs at them. Plus I’m hoping that from the center you can see things a bit more accurate considering you’re trying to take Everything into account.

By the way I was intending to Troll a bit but more towards the idea that any one side (Atheist, Theist or Agnostic) is any more right than any other side (Sometimes you get Gangs of foolish Atheists bashing anyone with an idea on forums like this). I was looking to bring out those solid Atheists and throw a couple curve balls. Doesn’t seem to be too many of them here though... which is good.

I am Shadow btw... Sorry I should be breaking everyone’s posts up into 50 quotes then posting them 50 times to boost my post count (Or just flood to prove a point... depends on my mood).

[shadowhawk]

Lister: I am Shadow btw... Sorry I should be breaking everyone’s posts up into 50 quotes then posting them 50 times to boost my post count (Or just flood to prove a point... depends on my mood).

Not the same as me

[livinglong]

You all talk religion or religious. Don't need to prove there is a God, He just is. It's not a religion, etc it's a relationship. It takes too much 'faith' to believe that God don't exist.

[kevinseven11]

Livinglong, tell me why you care to live long if you are 100% confident your going to live for an eternity?
If your not 100% confident then thats why you need to prove there is or is not a god.

[kevinseven11]

Livinglong, tell me why you care to live long if you are 100% confident your going to live for an eternity?
If your not 100% confident then thats why you need to prove there is or is not a god.

[Lister]

You all talk religion or religious. Don't need to prove there is a God, He just is. It's not a religion, etc it's a relationship. It takes too much 'faith' to believe that God don't exist.

God: “I refuse to prove that I Exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

“But” Says Man “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it?” “It proves you exist and so therefore you don’t. QED”

“Oh Dear,” says God “I hadn’t thought of that.” And promptly vanishes in a Puff of logic.

[Link]

People who say "i don't have enough faith to be an atheist" are retarded. They always think it's such a clever, witty thing to say, but they're really just showing how ignorant they are - about both science and religion.

Religion requires huge leaps of faith, as well as the denial, or ignorance of, much contradiction and counter evidence.

Atheism is merely the acceptance that there is no scientific evidence for a religious god - nothing more, nothing less. It requires zero faith, in fact it is born out of skepticism.

Yes there are some people who assert that god or gods don't exist, or cannot exist, but they are usually referring to a religious or personal god.

If people are happy to define "God" as simply a force that governs the universe, then we already know gods exist - gravity must surely be one. You can worship it if you want but somehow i don't think religious people would get the same satisfaction that they get from worshiping their personal god who hears their prayers and kills first borns.

[shadowhawk]

People who say "i don't have enough faith to be an atheist" are retarded. They always think it's such a clever, witty thing to say, but they're really just showing how ignorant they are - about both science and religion.

Religion requires huge leaps of faith, as well as the denial, or ignorance of, much contradiction and counter evidence.

Atheism is merely the acceptance that there is no scientific evidence for a religious god - nothing more, nothing less. It requires zero faith, in fact it is born out of skepticism.

Yes there are some people who assert that god or gods don't exist, or cannot exist, but they are usually referring to a religious or personal god.

If people are happy to define "God" as simply a force that governs the universe, then we already know gods exist - gravity must surely be one. You can worship it if you want but somehow i don't think religious people would get the same satisfaction that they get from worshiping their personal god who hears their prayers and kills first borns.

This is not the definition of Atheism which has nothing to do with science. Nothing in science proved Atheism and while it may not be faith like a theists faith, there is no evidence for Atheism. Faith and evidence are not set apart as you have done. You are not scientific while Theists are not. Read the past arguments on the evidence for Atheism.

http://www.longecity...885#entry501885

http://www.longecity...302#entry518302

[Link]

There is no one single true definition of atheism, just as there is no one definition of what it means to be a christian.

Atheism just means "without god".

For some reason it's ok for every individual theist to cherry pick which parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally and which aren't. Which parts are fables and which are true historical accounts.

But when it comes to atheism they cram it down our throat that "If you are an atheist then you must say that you know that god doesn't exist".

I don't know whether a god in some form exists or not. But i see no evidence whatsoever of a god as described in religious texts. I also see much contradiction and counter evidence. Therefore i choose to live my life without god and i consider myself an atheist.

[Lister]

Evidence for Atheism?

First let’s recognize the wide ranging views within Atheism (within any general point of view for that matter). The text book definition; the rejection of a belief in deities; is rarely fully invested in. It’s a broad definition. The majority of Atheists would likely reject religion over rejecting the existence of a God. That is to say that they reject prayer, warship, holy texts… etc. There’s plenty of evidence for the inaccuracies of all that; of course that’s another issue entirely.

They don’t believe in the non-existence of god. Usually if pressed most Atheists will allow for the possible existence of a God or Deity, however unlikely they feel it would be.

If someone believes that Gods or Deities cannot exist 100% then that is where faith can come in. I certainly don’t have enough faith to be that kind of Atheist. To me God might exist; however I cannot think that the Bible is the word of that God or Deity, or believe in the perfection of that specific entity. I cannot believe that religion is always a benefit and I really don’t think if God exists they have much to do with Religion at all.

You are right Shadow in that there is no evidence for the Non-Existence of God; however that’s a very specific definition of Atheism you’re working under. In a general sense there’s plenty of evidence for Atheistic views.

[shadowhawk]

Usually if pressed most Atheists will allow for the possible existence of a God or Deity, however unlikely they feel it would be.

name me an example.

[shadowhawk]

Link: For some reason it's ok for every individual theist to cherry pick which parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally and which aren't. Which parts are fables and which are true historical accounts.

This is not correct. It is the job of hermeneutics to determine the meaning of the text. It is no different for any literature. Surely you know that.

But when it comes to atheism they cram it down our throat that "If you are an atheist then you must say that you know that god doesn't exist".

That is what Atheism means. An Agnostic doesn’t know if god exists or not. No cram intended.
http://www.longecity...885#entry501885

I don't know whether a god in some form exists or not. But I see no evidence whatsoever of a god as described in religious texts. I also see much contradiction and counter evidence. Therefore I choose to live my life without god and I consider myself an atheist.

What evidence have you looked at? You are an agnostic who doesn’t claim to know, while using a word which means you do know. Ok, only don’t now use this to attempt to escape the burden of proof, while demanding absolute proof (which doesn’t exist for anything) of theists. If you really don’t know, fine. Just be consistent.

[Lister]

I'm confused Shadow. Why are you so stubborn about forcing things into predefined boxes? Are you incapable of Free thought?

Find me proof that every person on this earth claiming to be an Atheist believes that there is no God 100%. If you don't want to that because you get hung up on the whole idea that Atheism is nothing but the 100% belief in the non-existence of God... Then find me proof that Atheism HAS to mean that. A-Non Theistic-Religious; Non-Religious. Why can’t it mean that?

A person who allows for the existence of God but is against religion is NOT Agnostic. Agnostic people are wholly on the fence by definition. If you are wholly against religion then you’re not wholly on the fence.

Actually one could sort of call them Pastafarians couldn't they?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: I'm confused Shadow. Why are you so stubborn about forcing things into predefined boxes? Are you incapable of Free thought?

Good, being capable of free thought your words mean anything I want them too. Good to see you aren’t confused. I am stubborn which means anything goes. See how wide open I am? Thanks for the compliment.

Lister: Find me proof that every person on this earth claiming to be an Atheist believes that there is no God 100%. If you don't want to that because you get hung up on the whole idea that Atheism is nothing but the 100% belief in the non-existence of God... Then find me proof that Atheism HAS to mean that. A-Non Theistic-Religious; Non-Religious. Why can’t it mean that?

Is there 100% proof that all the words in the English dictionary don’t mean just opposite then what the dictionary says. Everything means everything don’t you think? You seem think that 100% of the people on the earth believe anything. Prove it. That means 100% that nothing is true. Of corse I didn’t mean what you think I do because my words mean what ever I want them to. WHY Not! Don’t be narrow.

Lister: A person who allows for the existence of God but is against religion is NOT Agnostic. Agnostic people are wholly on the fence by definition. If you are wholly against religion then you’re not wholly on the fence.

All religions? Is a theist religious? Don’t think you know! You DO KNOW WHAT, “AGNOSTIC” IS! Did you get this from the dictionary. I’m confused by all this babble. Are you saying God cannot be related to any religion? How do you know that and what makes you right and all the billions of believes wrong. I’m confused.

Lister: Actually one could sort of call them Pastafarians couldn't they?

You can call them what ever you want, even Atheist unless you are stubborn.

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 August 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Lister]

Lister: I'm confused Shadow. Why are you so stubborn about forcing things into predefined boxes? Are you incapable of Free thought?

Good, being capable of free thought your words mean anything I want them too. Good to see you aren’t confused. I am stubborn which means anything goes. See how wide open I am? Thanks for the compliment.

Lister: Find me proof that every person on this earth claiming to be an Atheist believes that there is no God 100%. If you don't want to that because you get hung up on the whole idea that Atheism is nothing but the 100% belief in the non-existence of God... Then find me proof that Atheism HAS to mean that. A-Non Theistic-Religious; Non-Religious. Why can’t it mean that?

Is there 100% proof that all the words in the English dictionary don’t mean just opposite then what the dictionary says. Everything means everything don’t you think? You seem think that 100% of the people on the earth believe anything. Prove it. That means 100% that nothing is true. Of corse I didn’t mean what you think I do because my words mean what ever I want them to. WHY Not! Don’t be narrow.

Lister: A person who allows for the existence of God but is against religion is NOT Agnostic. Agnostic people are wholly on the fence by definition. If you are wholly against religion then you’re not wholly on the fence.

All religions? Is a theist religious? Don’t think you know! You DO KNOW WHAT, “AGNOSTIC” IS! Did you get this from the dictionary. I’m confused by all this babble. Are you saying God cannot be related to any religion? How do you know that and what makes you right and all the billions of believes wrong. I’m confused.

Lister: Actually one could sort of call them Pastafarians couldn't they?

You can call them what ever you want, even Atheist unless you are stubborn.

Why such extremes? Free thinking doesn't mean you abandon all meaning... It feels as though you have trouble sticking your neck out there; telling me what you think rather than why I'm wrong.

I'm wrong on many things Shadow... If you're looking to prove me wrong then you've done it. You won the thread. Now that we've gotten that out of the way can you allow the the possibility that minor adaptations can be made to the defintions of very vague words like Atheist?

Think outside the box for me could ya? I won't bite... Hard...

[Lister]

You know what? No. I’m sorry Shadow.

Christianity at its core is really all about rigidly defined rules to live your life by.

When I ask you to step outside the box I’m asking for abstract thought. For you to do that Shadow you would have to leave your faith. That’s not fair of me to ask you. I’m sorry.

At the same time though shadow you have to recognize that I am outside of that. I don’t have to consider my faith when I suggest directions for conversation. If I were you I would say “I can’t and won’t think in that direction. My faith is important to me and that line of thought exists outside of my faith.”

If you said something like that anyone arguing you further is pretty much grasping for straws. You said what you believe and that’s an end for you. I get it. I don’t agree with thinking like that but I can respect that you do.

You have your faith and I have my abstract thought. I don’t want to think like you so why should you have to think like me?

[Godot]

Prove me wrong

Creationism is correct. God created the world 6000 years ago. All of the proof that life existed before that was created in place by God to promote choice.

Why did God do it? Because they did. It is not our place to question the will of the Lord.

God didn't do that. I did it. Prove me wrong.

Stupid thread, btw.

[Lister]

Prove me wrong

Creationism is correct. God created the world 6000 years ago. All of the proof that life existed before that was created in place by God to promote choice.

Why did God do it? Because they did. It is not our place to question the will of the Lord.

God didn't do that. I did it. Prove me wrong.

Stupid thread, btw.

Owch. Aw man it's going to take me all weekend to get over the crippling depression caused by that reply.

But hey jokes aside thank you for your thought provoking and inspiring comment. Glad you took a leap of faith and used your gray squishy brain to come up with something useful to all of us.

Thank you.

[Link]

Well if i am an agnostic then every religious person who concedes that they don't know with 100% certainty that god exists is an agnostic as well i suppose.

[shadowhawk]

Well if i am an agnostic then every religious person who concedes that they don't know with 100% certainty that god exists is an agnostic as well i suppose.

By that logic the same goes for Atheists. Are you 100% sure you are right? You might be wrong.

[Lister]

Well if i am an agnostic then every religious person who concedes that they don't know with 100% certainty that god exists is an agnostic as well i suppose.

By that logic the same goes for Atheists. Are you 100% sure you are right? You might be wrong.

I'm sorry Shadow; there's no such thing as 100% Sure. You can be convinced by something that's 80%, or 90%... or 60%... but there's no 100%.

You're a philosopher right? Did you totally ignore your Descartes?

As Descartes began his pursuit for the starting point of philosophy, he decided that he needed to rid himself of anything that could be doubted. Thus, he started with “radical doubt.” For Descartes, even our five senses could not be trusted to give us a certain understanding of reality. In fact, Descartes said he even had to doubt that his own body existed. “What if I think I am sitting in a chair by this stove, but in reality I’m only dreaming?” he said. “Maybe there is an evil demon playing a trick on my senses,” said Descartes. “I may think I am sitting in this chair by a stove in a room, but the demon may be tricking me.”

This is a basic doubt. The only possible 100% is the line "I think therefore I am" and even that is can be tainted with doubt. You can't sit there and target people with that question "Are you 100% sure you are right" when you yourself have things you think you're 100% right about.

[shadowhawk]

Well if i am an agnostic then every religious person who concedes that they don't know with 100% certainty that god exists is an agnostic as well i suppose.

By that logic the same goes for Atheists. Are you 100% sure you are right? You might be wrong.

I'm sorry Shadow; there's no such thing as 100% Sure. You can be convinced by something that's 80%, or 90%... or 60%... but there's no 100%.

You're a philosopher right? Did you totally ignore your Descartes?

As Descartes began his pursuit for the starting point of philosophy, he decided that he needed to rid himself of anything that could be doubted. Thus, he started with “radical doubt.” For Descartes, even our five senses could not be trusted to give us a certain understanding of reality. In fact, Descartes said he even had to doubt that his own body existed. “What if I think I am sitting in a chair by this stove, but in reality I’m only dreaming?” he said. “Maybe there is an evil demon playing a trick on my senses,” said Descartes. “I may think I am sitting in this chair by a stove in a room, but the demon may be tricking me.”

This is a basic doubt. The only possible 100% is the line "I think therefore I am" and even that is can be tainted with doubt. You can't sit there and target people with that question "Are you 100% sure you are right" when you yourself have things you think you're 100% right about.

Strange..You need to read my response to Link again. You missed the point.

[Lister]

I got your point shadow. I didn't feel the need to agree with you and pat you on the shoulder telling you how awesome a guy you are and how cool it would be to be friends with you. I figured you had that handled. I brought up another point I felt was pretty relevant. Perhaps you felt it wasn't relevant?

My whole point in making this thread was to bring out and target any Atheists that believe in the 100% truth of something. Hence why I figured you’d understand that I got your point and moved on. Do you then not believe in the 100% truth of things?

[shadowhawk]

I got your point shadow. I didn't feel the need to agree with you and pat you on the shoulder telling you how awesome a guy you are and how cool it would be to be friends with you. I figured you had that handled. I brought up another point I felt was pretty relevant. Perhaps you felt it wasn't relevant?

My whole point in making this thread was to bring out and target any Atheists that believe in the 100% truth of something. Hence why I figured you’d understand that I got your point and moved on. Do you then not believe in the 100% truth of things?

Thanks Lister. Nice words to me. Not used to that. I do not believe you can prove anything 100% That does not mean I don't believe some things to be true.

[Lister]

I got your point shadow. I didn't feel the need to agree with you and pat you on the shoulder telling you how awesome a guy you are and how cool it would be to be friends with you. I figured you had that handled. I brought up another point I felt was pretty relevant. Perhaps you felt it wasn't relevant?

My whole point in making this thread was to bring out and target any Atheists that believe in the 100% truth of something. Hence why I figured you’d understand that I got your point and moved on. Do you then not believe in the 100% truth of things?

Thanks Lister. Nice words to me. Not used to that. I do not believe you can prove anything 100% That does not mean I don't believe some things to be true.

I assumed that was true about you Shadow however you make it EXTREMELY hard for me and others! If you said to me that you believed strongly that the God of the Bible created Life through DNA I would totally support you regardless of my own beliefs! But you always reply with "Prove it!" or some other blunt rejection of an open conversation!

It's like having a conversation with someone who's constantly holding a knife at your throat!

I would have no problem flicking half these Atheists away as at their core they’re only interested in being RIGHT! Hence you just have to admit that they’re right (Whether they are or not; Who cares if they have nothing to add) and they break down and give up. You on the other hand want to have a conversation. You want to be right but you also want to exchange ideas. The only trouble is you won’t do it unless you have a fully loaded Gun by your side!

How can I decide whether your ideas are right for me or not if you won’t present them from your heart? This is why I’m always pushing you to write stuff instead of quoting, pasting a link and/or copy and pasting from a source. I want to hear what YOU have to say not what they said.

You said in a past post that perhaps I wasn’t taught right (kind of insulting) however this is the core of education! Showing that you understand the content by phrasing your own arguments build upon the ideas (not always the words) of others arguments.

I want you to Prove Me Wrong shadow because this is how I build up my core understanding of life. Being wrong is part of science and thus should be part of ID should it not? What do you THINK?

[Godot]

This conversation continues to be asinine, because the premise that you are asking to have disproven is not testable.