new here, And I believe in God
Offline yes indeed I am a Christian, And I would like to take part in some discussions on this site. I was once an Agnostic/Atheist so I know where most of you guys are coming from, And I don't think trusting the bible makes me a moron by default. ( though I am sure some of you disagree )
My question is: Should I even bother by trying to have intelligent conversation, or am I just going to get flamed and cussed at and called names and mocked ... Before I even lay out any arguments ? I ask this because of the way I have seen so many online forum debates turn out on many other sites.
- Login to post comments
Offline Apokalipse wrote:Technically, an antitheist doesn't have to be an atheist.
Not sure how you figure that. If one is a non-atheist antitheist, would he be a theistic antitheist? Just curious about that. Sounds kind of twisted.
Apokalipse wrote:Talk25 wrote:Which belief are you talking about exactly? and why don't you need proof?To answer your question; No, I do not need proof for any of my beliefs.Quote:I would beg to differ. If the probability of a claim being true is minutely small, and there is no supporting evidence for this claim, then it is scientifically valid to not believe in that claim.This fact is the primary reason why I say that the belief in gods and the belief that gods do not exist are both extra-scientific belief systems.Uh... I've never heard of any reputable scientist publishing any actual numbers on the 'probability' of the existence of gods. Have you?
For example, Richard Dawkins.
You really can't claim scientific support for your idea just because you have come to what you consider a logical conclusion. It is my understanding that all scientific discoveries begin with an hypothesis, not a conclusion.
If the probability is extremely low, and there is no supporting evidence, then as per the scientific method, that will support the conclusion that the idea is invalid.
I'm really getting tired of this discussion. No one on this website has been able to point to any reputable scientific research to support the idea that atheism is scientific, yet they believe it is.
Ok. Believe whatever you want, even though you don't have any evidence to support it. (Gee, wouldn't that make it irrational according to you?)
But the sheer lack of evidence to suggest that we are makes it scientifically valid not to believe that we are.
- Login to post comments
Offline You really can't claim scientific support for your idea just because you have come to what you consider a logical conclusion.Believe whatever you want, even though you don't have any evidence to support it. (Gee, wouldn't that make it irrational according to you?)
So your claim is that using logic is irrational? Science is powerful because it depends both on logic and rational thought, and it's obvious why you wouldn't want it to support atheism.
You still haven't provided an example of an experiment that would not be "extra-scientific" since any experiement can include unknown, undetecable "supernatural" factors. Is your claim that it is impossible to know anything scientifically? If not, what information could possibly be known, considering that anything could be a "supernatural" trick?
Further, you haven't addressed the issue: if according to scientific knowledge, no god can possibly exist, how is it "extra-scientific" to conclude that none does?
Perhaps there is a problem of definitions. If you argue that god has no location, no presence, and no interaction with the world, then in what way do you think it could exist?
- Login to post comments
Offline Before I go further scanning this thread, I must point out the following, in hopes we may simplify this question -
GOD EXISTS
Is an Ill-Formed Hypothesis. GOD and EXISTS are not defined.
Being of a scientific bent, I approach the apparently easier term - Existence - first, in hopes of some opening general assent with a Theist; but I am foolish in this regard.
Theists invariably define God first, and adjust Existence to fit; thus, we arrive at the Spiritual Realm and Dualism. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for Dualism beyond this.
The "definition" of God may be further clearly seen as not BOUNDING God, but often UnBounding God - Omnicience, Omnipotence, Ultimate Good, BOUNDLESS Love, etc.
This requires an UnBounded concept of Existence - a very transparent cheat, if I may say so.
The Universe is quite finite, however. Look it up sometime.
--------------------------------------------------
I don't need to prove the nonexistence of God; I only need prove that if God Exists, He is quite irrelevant.
All atheists do this daily - they keep right on breathing.
__________________
Prometheus Unbored
- Login to post comments
Offline Before I go further scanning this thread, I must point out the following, in hopes we may simplify this question -
GOD EXISTS
Is an Ill-Formed Hypothesis. GOD and EXISTS are not defined.
Being of a scientific bent, I approach the apparently easier term - Existence - first, in hopes of some opening general assent with a Theist; but I am foolish in this regard.
Theists invariably define God first, and adjust Existence to fit; thus, we arrive at the Spiritual Realm and Dualism. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for Dualism beyond this.
The "definition" of God may be further clearly seen as not BOUNDING God, but often UnBounding God - Omnicience, Omnipotence, Ultimate Good, BOUNDLESS Love, etc.
This requires an UnBounded concept of Existence - a very transparent cheat, if I may say so.
The Universe is quite finite, however. Look it up sometime.
--------------------------------------------------
I don't need to prove the nonexistence of God; I only need prove that if God Exists, He is quite irrelevant.
All atheists do this daily - they keep right on breathing.
__________________
Prometheus Unbored
- Login to post comments
Mainly because "perhaps that would not be extra-scientific" also means that perhaps it would be, right?
Also because you never distinguished why that would not be extra-scientific, but the existence of god would, considering that they both deal with things that are undetectable.
Not sure how you figure that. If one is a non-atheist antitheist, would he be a theistic antitheist? Just curious about that. Sounds kind of twisted.
Uh... I've never heard of any reputable scientist publishing any actual numbers on the 'probability' of the existence of gods. Have you? You really can't claim scientific support for your idea just because you have come to what you consider a logical conclusion. It is my understanding that all scientific discoveries begin with an hypothesis, not a conclusion.
I'm really getting tired of this discussion. No one on this website has been able to point to any reputable scientific research to support the idea that atheism is scientific, yet they believe it is. Ok. Believe whatever you want, even though you don't have any evidence to support it. (Gee, wouldn't that make it irrational according to you?)
The world needs Truthfulness, Compassion, Tolerance.
Falun Dafa is good.