This discussion seems like it is worth continuing. A lot is getting settled here and everyone is leaving more enlightened than they were before.

May the next four pages be as enlightening as the first four.

Long live this thread.

Can we talk about retarded mutant fossils and their effects on evolution instead?

10/1/2009 7:11:01 PM

Quote :

"The problem with saying that "if you can't be sure of something than you're agnostic" is that this applies to LITERALLY EVERYTHING IN THE NATURAL WORLD."

Why must I apply it to everything? You keep saying that we must do this, why? I choose to only apply it to the most important question. The most important question to anything living with the capability of imagining God(s). It is the everything question.

^

That sounds more interesting than caps lock wars.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 7:11:14 PM

Quote :

"What the fuck? How does someone like you even function in the real world? "Will the sun rise tomorrow? Well... scientists are OFTEN proven to be wrong, oh no... it MIGHT NOT OH GOD>>>>""

i love how you either take one extreme or the other

kinda like theism or atheism, no middle ground, right?

sorry i'm still openminded to the creation of the universe 14 billion years ago (omg i didnt say 6,000 years ago!)

glad you are certain how it was created

if it hasnt always existed...can you even fathom that concept? something infinite? i can't, but i don't claim to

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:12 PM. Reason : /]

10/1/2009 7:12:28 PM

Christians don't KNOW that theres a God. They believe. Thats why its called faith.

Quote :

"We don't know yet. Admitting that does not give any evidence towards a divine creator at all. "

We don't know yet but so far a dvine creator is the best theory on the table and christians BELIEVE in a God. They don't know theres a God they just bleive in the theory of God. All evidence points towards intelligent design and no evidence poitns against it. It works scientifically. As of now, there HAS to be a God.

Quote :

"Christian God"

Now I'm not sure what you mean by this but isn't the christian God, muslim God and Jewish God the same God?

If you are questioning the charateristics of this God being as Christians explain then you are raising a valid argument. We believe theres a God and theres nothing to refute that point but we also believe that God is ALL LOVING AND ALL POWERFULL despite there being overwhelming evidence agains that.

If God was all love and all powerfull why would he create a world filled with suffering specifically suffering of the innocent and undeserving? Why would children be born with disorders or diseases? why would there be cancer that anyone could get and not just bad people? why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa? Why would I get in a horrible car accident while driving a 93 year old blind woman I didn't know to her docter? etc etc

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:18 PM. Reason : God can't be both all LOVING and all POWERFULL]

10/1/2009 7:16:44 PM

TreeTwista just because you accept a "middle" position doesn't mean you're nuanced or intelligent

Read a fucking book you slobbering idiot. You are the least well-justified agnostic I've seen, even worse than the "I just don't know/care" types.

10/1/2009 7:17:33 PM

I'm not claiming to be intelligent about things like the origin of the universe...I'm claiming atheists are equally as ignorant

Did it ever occur to you that we don't know all the answers and we never will? If not you must think too highly of yourself / scientists / etc

I'm simply being humble about it, something theists and atheists simply don't get because both groups think they know it all, when they don't

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 7:18:13 PM

Quote :

"Did it ever occur to you that we don't know all the answers and we never will? If not you must think too highly of yourself / scientists / etc"

This is not surprising to a working mathematician/scientist or to anybody who has opened a fucking book. There are plenty of problems that are, in fact, PROVABLY unknowable or in-principle unsolvable. Again: go to the library and crack a few books, you have literally smoked yourself retarded. Your middle school philosophical insights only seem deep to yourself and other idiots who refuse to read.

10/1/2009 7:21:23 PM

Why don't you go trip some acid and tell me how I smoked myself retarded

Some people think they know it all, some realize they don't...guess who is who

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:25 PM. Reason : omg you've melted your spinal cord retarded]

10/1/2009 7:23:53 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you go trip some acid and tell me how I smoked myself retarded Some people think they know it all, some realize they don't...guess who is who"

Fundamental theorem of history: "people don't read."

I know I don't know it all; wanna know how? Because I know my fucking field, and a even a few related fields! How the hell did that happen? I read! You should too! Get fucking bent while you're at it!

10/1/2009 7:25:35 PM

No you're right, if you read books, you'll unquestionably understand all the things that even the most brilliant philosophers in the world's history died not knowing

btw, I believe in the big bang...it IS the most plausible of the current theories, at least in my opinion...doesn't mean its true...doesn't mean I have FAITH that the Big Bang is what created the universe...is it the most likely right now? sure, i agree 100%...ok? i'll treat it as the most likely scenario right now, but I won't put my faith in it

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 7:26:58 PM

Why does there have to be an all powerful god? I can agree with a creator, but since the universe is not infinite, then there is no need to speculate on an infinite creator. All in all though, I think the whole god versus no god debate is a bit silly as one side is not going to convince the other they're wrong. And regardless of how much devastation religion has caused over the years, I still believe it has had a positive effect on humanity as it give people something to live for. In fact, I would go so far as to say without religion the human race would have most likely would have gone extinct.

10/1/2009 7:30:08 PM

Quote :

"No you're right, if you read books, you'll unquestionably understand all the things that even the most brilliant philosophers in the world's history died not knowing btw, I believe in the big bang...it IS the most plausible of the current theories, at least in my opinion...doesn't mean its true...doesn't mean I have FAITH that the Big Bang is what created the universe"

lol try reading my posts

Your reading comprehension is horrible and your personality so degenerate that I doubt you'll ever scrape yourself out of a state of adolescent confusion. It's cool though, at least your dad can hand you a salary so you can continue to take up space!

10/1/2009 7:30:49 PM

another example of atheists assuming shit...i thought only theists did that?

10/1/2009 7:32:01 PM

McDanger is not an atheist.

10/1/2009 7:32:31 PM

I wouldn't even consider myself a strong atheist-- I don't really have much of an opinion on the matter. I don't think we can know one way or the other, so I accept the simplest hypothesis consistent with the data. Thus, I don't believe in a god. It doesn't mean I'm absolutely convinced one CAN'T exist, it's just that I don't think any physical evidence can tell us whether we're in a world where there is one or isn't one.

10/1/2009 7:33:32 PM

Why can't we just keep this thread on topic and discuss how atheists should behave around people of faith???

10/1/2009 7:35:25 PM

after reading McDanger's post on page 2 ( i think ) i pretty much agree

Quote :

"I accept whatever simplest explanation fits the data and remain agnostic about shit that can't be pried apart by evidence."

that makes perfect sense to me...although when a theist becomes skeptical about god and becomes an atheist, why not also be skeptical about atheism?

When you believe something thats untrue, and build off that belief, you are compounding your ignorance

10/1/2009 7:37:08 PM

Quote :

"that makes perfect sense to me...although when a theist becomes skeptical about god and becomes an atheist, why not also be skeptical about atheism?"

Most "atheists" accept atheism as a working assumption, not as the absolute, immutable truth.

10/1/2009 7:38:56 PM

not to split hairs, but that depends on your definition of atheism/atheists

10/1/2009 7:39:49 PM

A lot of people who don't believe in god, when pushed on the issue, will assert that a god is possible but that belief in god is unwarranted.

But please let's continue to joust with windmills.

10/1/2009 7:40:36 PM

i'd call those people agnostics who call themselves atheists

10/1/2009 7:42:18 PM

Then we're arguing semantics; let's just stop it here and go home.

10/1/2009 7:44:43 PM

I do not believe that McDanger is an atheist, he is closer to my vein of agnosticism. God on the other hand is closer to what I consider an atheist, in that he relies more on statistics and probability to assert his belief to an almost faith-based position. Granted, I haven't really asked either of you since the last time I talked to both of you about your stances on the everything question.

10/1/2009 7:44:52 PM

I agree that McDanger comes across as more of an agnostic and God comes across as more of an atheist

^^sure why not

Quote :

"almost faith-based position"

and that was the original point i was making...how unlike agnostics, who might go along with the best known theory, atheists almost do have a faith-based position in atheism...i tried to point out the comparison in atheists and theists, in that however opposite their views, both groups, at least the devout ones, have the similarity of strongly believing in something, almost to the point of thinking they know

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:48 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 7:46:15 PM

You're just arguing semantics.

If someone believes that there is absolutely irrefutably no god, then they are an idiot.

Your definition of an atheist is incorrect. An atheist doesn't "believe in nothing," as some people say, or "believe that there is absolutely no god," as you would say.

It's pretty much what McDanger defined. Someone who has come to the conclusion that a god probably doesn't exist given the evidence.

This means that if there were evidence to the contrary, we would weigh it accordingly. We're not close-minded like you're portraying us to be.

10/1/2009 7:47:10 PM

i've also come to the conslusion that god probably doesnt exist given the evidence

but i'd call myself an agnostic, because i havent completely ignored the possibility that god does exist...i simply choose to be content that i dont know and wont ever know (until i die...and thats a maybe)

10/1/2009 7:50:41 PM

To put it another way, if you said you were leaning towards the idea that god doesn't exist than, sorry, but ... gasp... you are an atheist. Stop being afraid of the negative labels. Stop being afraid that you're somehow betraying your beliefs. Don't be afraid to admit that god probably doesn't exist. Saying "The jury is still out" just gives ammunition to religious people.

"Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?" - Stephen Colbert.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 7:50:48 PM

Okay, let's get the definition of an atheist straight.

The only thing that is required to be an atheist is to not accept the existence of a god.

It is an ABSENSE of a belief in a god. It does not necessarily mean that an atheist believes a god cannot exist.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 7:51:53 PM

Quote :

"if you said you were leaning towards the idea that god doesn't exit than, sorry, but ... gasp... you are an atheist."

i dont agree at all

and if i was afraid of negative labels, i wouldnt label myself as an agnostic...plenty of people (mostly theists) view them the exact same way as atheists

^thats not any kind of universal definition though...there are varying definitions all around...again we're arguing semantics, but in this instance, semantics are quite important if all our precursors for discussion arent on the same page

when i think of an "atheist" i think of someone who thinks there is no god...compared to a theist who thinks there IS a god...agnostics are basically like "fuck i dont know, maybe maybe not"...if you're saying people who dont know are atheists and agnostics, then we have a big discretion in semantics...it nearly sounds like your definition of an atheist would encompass all agnostics...which cant be right

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 7:52:31 PM

Then I'm an atheist by Carzak's definition, but that label doesn't seem to fit me very well, as I'm a very spiritual person open to the existence of God(s). This is why I usually consider myself agnostic instead.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 7:55:59 PM

thats why i dont agree with his defintion...how can someone open to the possibility of god be an atheist and not an agnostic? whats the difference? do agnostics not exist?

10/1/2009 7:56:36 PM

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 8:04 PM. Reason : nvm]

10/1/2009 8:02:47 PM

I would define myself, in regards to God, as someone who cannot glean true knowledge about the existence of God yet, but also does not deny that God might exist. Agnosticism. imo.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 8:14:21 PM

that pretty much describes me

10/1/2009 8:15:45 PM

Then you are some variety of agnostics.

Read these for a nice overview of this stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 8:20:37 PM

Quote :

"and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist"

this shatters my whole reality

Quote :

" the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." "

good summary

of the types on the wikipedia link for agnostics, i'd say this is me

Quote :

"Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism") the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.""

interesting:

Quote :

"Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[34] Michael Martin,[25] and William L. Rowe[35] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[36] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[34] and in Catholic apologetics[37] since at least 1813.[38][39] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists. While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[25] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[40] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[41] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[42] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[43] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[44] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[45] "

these guys can explain it a lot more concisely and comprehensively than i can

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 8:23:21 PM

I haven’t read all of this thread, but there is an interesting new study out (built upon an old study) that investigates religiosity and brain structure…

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/finding-the-fear-and-love-of-god-inside-the-brain.ars
Finding the fear and love of God inside the brain

You may just not be genetically pre-disposed to being able to really “feel” a connection with a god.

Likewise, someone who does fervently believe they have a connection with god might not be able to understand how you can’t.

10/1/2009 8:32:41 PM

^thats pretty interesting...i wonder how much of it is hardwired and how much is based on how you grow up

also this might be interesting, maybe message_topic.aspx?topic=577938

10/1/2009 8:42:21 PM

^

Quote :

"Being correlational rather than causal, these findings don't really address the question of whether certain individuals were more predisposed to particular patterns of religiosity because of their brain development. The fact that no region of the brain corresponded with religiosity of upbringing rules out the contention that religious nurture alone contributes to neuroanatomical variability."

10/1/2009 8:51:06 PM

i saw that, but it still seems like some people can give in to discipline, peer pressure, whatever, and "overcome" / go against their neural instincts

10/1/2009 8:53:13 PM

They would have to follow people from childhood to adulthood to determine that, but it’s almost certainly possible to “go against” your predisposition. Practically any study of this type will acknowledge that.

Your brain’s exact “shape” might not even be genetic (it could be related to chemical conditions in the womb, if your parents drank/smoke/ate lots of shrimp, etc.).

But if you don’t know that what you feel is a spiritual connection is due to the way your brain is “shaped” then you aren’t going to be too likely to ignore the voice of god… you’d almost be a fool to do so. If you know this though, then you can weigh your emotions against the rational side of your brain (unless of course you’re schizophrenic or otherwise nuts).

The published paper seems to be here: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 9:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 9:07:53 PM

How come the authority of the Bible is always void from these discussions? I tried using Scripture earlier as a basis for my belief in God and was met only with ridicule. Yet people seem to be much more cordial to each other when there belief system is just founded on "what they think." Basically it's ok to believe in God (or not) based on your own accord, but if you take the Bible for what it actually says then you are retarded and your opinion is cast aside. The Bible is only used as a reference when opponents try to discredit it, or when the few proponents try to mold it around their preordained beliefs. But the theme is the generally the same either way - it's all about self. me me me. what I think, how I feel, how everything relates to me.

Scripture frequently points out the flawed, selfish way of human thinking. The hopeless state of the human heart that is corrupted by sin, and therefore it cannot be trusted. This puts us in constant opposition to God and His Law. And yet we still think that ours is the opinion that matters. These are EXACTLY the reasons why I believe in the infallibility of Scripture, and makes belief in God pretty easy. These types of discussions only enforce what it says. We behave exactly the way it says we do. What human being could write that about ourselves? And moreover why would they WANT to? Most of the Bible is written in complete opposition to how we think and behave. Only God could describe the human heart and the need for His grace so perfectly. If we can actually stop thinking about "me" for a change, God, the Bible, et al. become much more real than just another of our baseless opinions.

10/2/2009 4:03:34 AM

Quote :

"How come the authority of the Bible is always void from these discussions? I tried using Scripture earlier as a basis for my belief in God and was met only with ridicule."

Because you can't appeal to the authority of the Bible if you're arguing with an agnostic or atheist in favor of religion. Christ, how is that not painfully obvious to you? The Bible has no academic authority to the non-Christian.

Furthermore, Scripture is a pretty weak basis for belief in God. That's sort of putting the cart before the horse.

Your idiocy makes me want to smite you.



However, I'm with Solinari...I get really irked by agnostics and atheists who are completely insensitive to people of faith. If you don't believe in God, well good for you, but there's no reason for you to be a dick, condescending, or look down upon anyone because he does (though it is perfectly acceptable to do all of the above in cases of people being fucking dumbasses). Evangelical atheists, in my eyes, are several times over more annoying than evangelical Christians (I'm talking in everyday social situations--not when Bible beaters try to make rules and laws in an attempt to impose their religion on everyone). On top of all that, they don't even make sense--the evangelical Christian at least perceives that there is something HUGE to be gained by steering your views towards his. I don't really know what the evangelical atheist is out to accomplish.



[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 5:33 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 5:35 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 5:38 AM. Reason : that previous post is so fucking stupid, it hurts.]

10/2/2009 5:26:01 AM

Using a special type of telescope, astronomers can read the "light signature" of a star ... how much of it is made up of the different colors of light. Because of the Doppler effect (waves being stretched or compressed when an object moves away or towards you) we can use the light signature to tell how a star is moving. A "red shift" means it's moving a way, a "blue shift" means it's moving closer. Back in the 50s when this first came about, scientists thought we would see a random pattern of red and blue shifts. But it turned out that every single star is moving away from us.

So the evidence shows that the universe is expanding. It only makes sense to theorize that the universe must have exploded out from a single point and all the galaxies still have their momentum from that event.

Can TreeTwista or the other Big Bang skeptics provide a better explanation for the red shift that astronomers see? Stars are moving away from us, that's a verified fact and not a theory. The Big Bang attempts to explain the facts that we have observed.

10/2/2009 7:11:22 AM

Red shift is something made-up by "Big Science" to further their anti-Christian agenda.

10/2/2009 8:39:06 AM

Quote :

"turned out that every single star is moving away from us."

you do mean away from a central point and not "us", aristotle?

10/2/2009 8:40:47 AM

Quote :

"the evangelical Christian at least perceives that there is something HUGE to be gained by steering your views towards his. I don't really know what the evangelical atheist is out to accomplish."

Exactly! At least the Christian is trying to spare you from eternal damnation. The athiest is just trying to spare you from......... a culturally valuable nativity scene or the pledge of allegiance. What douches!

10/2/2009 8:42:39 AM

^^^^^ Not to mention that the Bible is demonstrably fallible.

And IF the Bible were infallible, why is there so much division even among Christians? Even among Christians of the same denomination?

And what does that say about Jews or Muslims, who also share parts of the Bible, and who also feel their text is infallible? Theoretically, since their texts aren’t translated as much, they should be even MORE infallible than the Bible...

10/2/2009 9:15:01 AM

Quote :

"you do mean away from a central point and not "us", aristotle?"

I know you're trying to be smart, but stop, walk away from the computer, and think again.

10/2/2009 9:16:53 AM

Quote :

"I don't really know what the evangelical atheist is out to accomplish."

Quote :

"not when Bible beaters try to make rules and laws in an attempt to impose their religion on everyone"

i'm not an evangelical atheist and don't feel this way personally, but i could see the argument for trying to 'convince' bible beaters the error of their ways in order to avoid/reverse what you said about the legislating religious beliefs in this country

10/2/2009 10:54:55 AM