Hate to break it you.

Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Hate to break it you.

I don't see how "Athiesm" is any better than christianity. Yes Christians are brainwashed and delusional and any "proof" you ask them comes from the bible a book written by man.

I am what you call "AGNOSITC" I don't take ANY side. I see your beliefs and theroys no more than assumptions. Your theroys are very good but like beliefs they have flaws.

Im no christian because I have seen no proof of God's existance another reason being the bible's God is a narrowminded Tyrant whom contradicts himself.

I'm not an Athiest because you have YET to prove to me that there may be something intelligant OUT there.

But how are you ANY differant? You have no proof what so ever that there may NOT be something behind our existance and who knows our existance could be one consiencess. You don't fucking know. Nobody fucking knows!

Yes I agree with science

YES I am a bigtime skeptic of Ghosts, NDEs, OBEs.

But WHAT gives you ANY of you the right to say "You must belong to either creationism or athiesm? Your so called "Beliefs" is a concept which you human beings have created. I choose not to be a part of ANY of them. I got kicked off your little "Chat" for asking this. Only responses I got was a simple "ur a fag" from alittle twit named paige. WOW HOW INTELLIGANT AND MATURE!

How are you any differant? The very name sounds narrowminded. "Athiest police" Christians force there narrow minded beliefs of control and yet your doing almost the same thing. Metaphorically how are you ANY differant?

Sapient, Brad, Paige you can call me ignorant, kick me off, ban me, Insult my grammar but in truth you are no differant then what you oppose, and truth of that matter I can OWN you in a debate infact I just if you had to kick me. No I wasen't spamming, No I wanesn't bitching. IF ANY of you want to come claim better intelligance. MAKE SURE YOU CAN IT BACK UP!

 

 

 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Furyan wrote: I am what

Furyan wrote:

I am what you call "AGNOSITC" I don't take ANY side.

-QUIZ TIME-

Question - Do you believe in a god? 

If you answer 'yes', you are a theist.

If you answer 'no', you are an atheist

(it's really that simple)

 

There is not an in between position as you have so poorly been taught. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
ke

You are making fundamental confusions regarding the atheist position. And please correct your grammer and spelling, as it is almost impossible to read your posts.

Furyan wrote:

I am what you call "AGNOSITC" I don't take ANY side. I see your beliefs and theroys no more than assumptions. Your theroys are very good but like beliefs they have flaws.

I believe the term is Agnostic. It would seem to me you are making an argumentum ad nauseam. This means you are making a fallacy of assertion. Atheism, at least, the atheism to which you refer, is not a belief. There are no "theories" or "assumptions", unless you can correct me. You have not actually justified anything you have said henceforth. It is merely a negative claim regarding the existence of God, any other attached labels to the group as a whole are incoherent and false.

This is a foolish epistemic fallacy of negative proof. Why is it so frequently employed? The burden of proof does not rest on the negative claimant, rather the positive claimant. If your implication were true, a proposition could be defended solely on basis that it cannot be disproved! This is absurd. Do you believe in fairies merely because they cannot be disproved? Of course not.

Also, you are making a fundamental strawman regarding the atheist position.

A weak atheist makes a negative claim I do not believe that God exists. A weak atheist holds that there is no evidence for God and proofs of God (cosmology, design etc) are invalid, hence there is no reason to accept God without evidence. In this case, the weak atheist is making a valid negative claim. This is cogent but non-binding, meaning that the weak atheist does not know without doubt that God does not exist, they never claimed that, hence making your claim an invalid non sequitor (the claim that absolute knowledge is required to dismiss the concept of God). this is false because the weak atheist position is that were evidence to come along for God, they would either counter it or abdicate their position. I have neve, ever heard a weak atheist claim they know beyond doubt that God does not exist.

 

Furyan wrote:

But how are you ANY differant? You have no proof what so ever that there may NOT be something behind our existance and who knows our existance could be one consiencess. You don't fucking know. Nobody fucking knows!

Being a logical proposition, the notion of transcendant intelligence should be testable and hence falsifiable. Having studied both the philosophical schools of rationality and empiricism for a long time, I have become convinced it is neither. Hence, any talk of it is meaningless. I tend to view religious proposition as noncognitivist, anyway, so it is irrelevant. Also, it seems you have, again, made a fallacy of negative proof. This shows such a poor knowledge of epistemic validity I am suprised anyone would entertain it.

In epistemology, the burden of proof rests on the claimant at all times. Hence, unless evidence is presented for God, only the atheist is operating within their epistemic rights

Furyan wrote:

But WHAT gives you ANY of you the right to say "You must belong to either creationism or athiesm?

This is a fallacy of false dichotomy, and being that you are invoking the RRS as saying that, I would imagine it is also a strawman.

Furyan wrote:

Your so called "Beliefs" is a concept which you human beings have created.

As of yet, you have hitherto not justified your assertion that "atheism" is a belief, nor have you made reference to which philosophical stance you are referring to (weak atheism, otherwise known as agnostic atheism, or strong atheism, otherwise known as deductive atheism). Regarding the deductive atheist position, there are multiple deductive arguments against theistic propositions. I have written several myself. Like this one:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/all_a_posteriori_arguments_for_the_existence_of_god_are_intellectually_bankrupt

Also, your statement regarding consciousness can also be proven false, as I have shown here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response

And, of course, we must take into account the noncognitivist position, which dismisses theistic propositions as not cogently meaningful:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_clarification_of_the_theological_noncognitivist_position

And lastly, please learn to spell.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Question is. I don't

Question is. I don't fucking know.

 

A belief is a faith. I dont have ANY faith. One may exist one may not. Nobody knows so Im not taking ANY side to any assumption. Simple as that. Have a problem with it, thats your fault. My philosphy is live life and learn and have an open mind. If you have a problem with that then your no better than christians. SIMPLE AS THAT. 

 SECOND. Ya I know my spelling needs WORK. I am working on it. LIKE I SAID. You are being no better than christians. Truth is you both force your beliefs on one another.  Yes Christianity is dumb and narrowminded. But on the other hand you are arrogant. I give you alot of kudos for taking back your thought. 

 Agnostism EXIST. No Im don't have EITHER one of your beliefs because the truth is none of you humans know the awnser. Only thing you have is assumptions. I don't make assumptions. Ive seen alot of wierd shit that either has an explaination or was something beyond me. What I am exists either if you want it to or not it does.

Eitherway I don't like to make assumptions and make a dogma out of them. I don't like following other peoples assumptions. Your beliefs and disbeliefs in Gods  and Godess or anything to do with the orgins of this blackhole of an existance is no more than assumptions. When someone makes an assumption that has absolutly NO FLAWS. I will think about taking a side then.

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sapient, Brad, Paige

Quote:
Sapient, Brad, Paige you can call me ignorant, kick me off, ban me, Insult my grammar but in truth you are no differant then what you oppose, and truth of that matter I can OWN you in a debate infact I just if you had to kick me. No I wasen't spamming, No I wanesn't bitching. IF ANY of you want to come claim better intelligance. MAKE SURE YOU CAN IT BACK UP!

Here's the thing.  I'm predicting you're going to have about three more posts before you do get banned.  I'm not going to do it, just to prove a point, but you've got an enormous chip on your shoulder, and you've obviously not bothered to read the ENORMOUS amount of debate/discussion of this subject that is already on the board, saying everything you've said.

Why don't you take that enormous chip off your shoulder, do some reading, and then come back when you've informed yourself more appropriately.  I can guarantee that if you spew much more of this kind of nonsense, you will get banned.

Consider this your first warning.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Are you going to answer my

Are you going to answer my queries or continue to pretend that I did not blow you to pieces? Essentially, as far as I can tell, you merely reworded your OP. Did you even bother to read my entire response? Are you going to actually take the necessary time, as I did (although it seems now that may have been a waste) to formulate a genuine argument, one which, perhaps, includes coherent sentences?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Sure you just handed me

Sure you just handed me YOUR dogma a few links of stuff that OTHER people wrote. Ironicly NEITHER athiesm or christianity have ANY proof. So if your all going to act "BETTER" than me. Go ahead and ban me.

Athiesm is no more than an assumption. Yes you are a belief. You think you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your just like christianity. But almost oppisites. Christianity dumb and arrogant, Athiesm intelligant and arrogant.

 

You can tell me "There is no god"

You can me "THERE IS A GOD"

 

Eitherway Im not going to believe ANY side until I see some REAL physical proof infront of me.

 

Go ahead MAKE me a troll for what I think. GO AHEAD! If you get that worked up over someone disagreeing with you then take a good look at yourselves.

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Furyan wrote:

Furyan wrote:

Sure you just handed me YOUR dogma a few links of stuff that OTHER people wrote. Ironicly NEITHER athiesm or christianity have ANY proof. So if your all going to act "BETTER" than me. Go ahead and ban me.

This is false. I wrote everything I handed to you. However, I presume you would not know that given that you did not bother to read it and realize that my name is on it. I have all the necessary qualifications to back up what I wrote, being that I have studied both neurology and classical and quantm mechanics.

Again, you make assertions without backing them up, nor did you, again, answer my queries, your argumentum ad nauseam failed to respond to the point I made that atheism, per se is merely a lack of belief in an existing dogma, hence, to call it a dogma itself is logically absurd.

Furyan wrote:

Eitherway Im not going to believe ANY side until I see some REAL physical proof infront of me.

I see you did not bother to read my points about epistemological invalidity and the fallacy of proof. Sigh...maybe I should use really small words that aren't hard to spell, and then perhaps, I could use lots of nice PICTURES.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
You provided THEROYS! You

You provided THEROYS! You provided the equivallant of an ASSUMPTION. You gave me links that you copy and pasted. You gave me something that someone else typed.

 

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
How dare you! I did no such

How dare you! I did no such thing! I have never, nor will I ever, plaigarize! I spent the necessary time to write those and have all the necessary qualifications to do so. If you actually took the time to click on the links, you would realize that they took you to my fucking section of this website! I have contributed enough material such that I now have my own section of this site for essays, which means that only I can access that part of the site.

Being that you are so convinced that I have plaigarized that work, could you kindly scour the internet and show me precisely where I have plaigarized from?

Otherwise, do not attempt such deliberate antagonization by spewing deliberate falsehoods. You are a conjurer of sophistry of such caliber that you could easily pass as a theologian. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I think it's possible for

I think it's possible for one to be an agnostic if he/she thinks it equally likely that some god exists as it doesn't.

 

Or if one thinks that beliefs must be held with certainty before they are rational / defensable.

 

On the later, I think the burden of proof should never be "with certainty". Otherwise we couldn't believe in anything.

 

We believe or disbelieve lots of things without being certain. Why exempt the god belief or hold it to a higher standard before calling it.

 

Am I certain no gods exist?  No. Do I need to be certain before asserting "no gods exist" is rational. No.

 

 

 


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
FFS. Christians copy and

FFS. Christians copy and paste links to sites containing THEIR so called proof of miricals and NDEs and such to try to convince me of there dogma all the time.

 I dont want links buddy. So when you can stop insulting my grammar and debate like an adult and ATLEAST be mature if you want to disagree about something.  I fully do give you guys kudos in urinating all over the christian, catholicm, muslim hell any thiestic religion there is.

 No I can't awnser if there IS a God or not. I don't know what exactly to say to it.  This is a quiz I don't know the awnser to and you will have to accept that.

 Like I said before if you ban me for "Not agreeing" with you. Then your no better than your deluted rivals. Christians ban people alot just for "Not agreeing" with them. By doing so you would be proving point exactly. 

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yes, but Christians never

Yes, but Christians never have original thoughts. They copy off other people. As I told you, this is my own writing. So, being that, you would have the courtesy to at least read what I (NOT SOMEONE ELSE,FUCKWAD) have taken the the time to write, because what I (I! I! I! I! I! I! I!) Have written, does answer your queries.

On the other hand, if you would prefer to continue this excercise in deliberate intellectual laziness...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
By the way, learn what

By the way, learn what "theory" actually means in science. And maybe take some meds.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Furyan, I take back what I

Furyan, I take back what I said about not banning you.  This is your second and final warning.

Deludedgod has given you directions for how to get to his writings.  You have no proof that he was plagiarizing (I know for a fact he's not) so your accusation amounts to an attack on a member.

If you do not address the arguments presented to you, I will personally ban you, and won't feel a moment's remorse.  You are acting like an ass.  Shape up now or you're gone.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
I just read it. Very good

I just read it. Very good theroy, but still I still dont agree with any.

 Christians are deluded. THEY BELIEVE a BOOK written by man defines God. 

 Your belief seems to be centered against ANY man made God.  Mainly the christian God.

 I believe there may be something out there. But that something doesnt have the title of "God" unless you give it that. So eitherway I dont side with any. By the way I don't see how your so better than me when you use words like "FUCKWAD" Come on if your so better than me ATLEAST disagree like an adult.

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Read my PM. and no need for

Nevermind


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Excellent! Being that you

Excellent! Being that you have now done me this courtesy, I will revert to civility.

YOu are correct. I was dealing only with supernatural Gods. Essentially mysticism and magic. I made that disclaimer at the top:

This essay will be dealing with the God of theologians and of the world’s major religions. It will not be encompassing physical Gods, all-encompassing Gods (pantheism) or mysticism.

But, if we are not to define God by the incoherent supernatural terms which theists do, then it what terms are we to define him as? Pantheism? That is more or less equivocant to atheism seeing as it embraces naturalism. I was attacking the incoherent notion of supernaturalism, not all-encompassing Spinozan philosophy.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
If you can debate with me

If you can debate with me intelligantly I can respect you which you are doing now. Personally I think if there IS something out there that deserves the "title" of "god" then no man made religion can find of discover it and it would have to be revealed by science or it will have to reveal itself to us. But looking at the size of the universe we would be no smaller than ants. It would be like trying to make contact with the atoms floating around in our bodies.

 Then there is the fact that this universe could easly be out of chance no meaning to life what so ever just out of chance. We reproduce die reproduce die, endless cycle.

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Sorry. Internet break. Now,

Sorry. Internet break.My philosophy is very simple. I am a scientist so I need evidence. If something has evidence, i will beleive it until that evidence is overturned. If something has evidence against it, I will disbelieve it until that evidence is overturned. If something has no evidence, I will not believe in it unless said evidence is presented.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
My real proposition is we

My real proposition is we just don't know. We do know that the thiestic God (the whole God, satan, hell, mary) is false. I dont believe in that in ANYWAY. Nor do I side with them. I DO DENY THEIR EXISTANCES!

I did note that Jesus, (The so called prophet Buddha not Siddartha) and speakers of many other cultures said almost the EXACT same thing about peace and forgiveness.

I have read a theroy that the "universes" are all one big intelligant consiencess and there are a crapload of big bangs going on making new ones all the time. No Indivdual spirt God, the thought that we are just that. A thought of our own.

I'm not saying that is true. Its a theroy, an interesting one that I read. But true or not I like to read anything that has a philosophical meaning. But I never make it my belief.

Truth is there is alot of stuff unexplained shit. Im sorry we got off on the wrong note there.

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I dont think that atheism

I dont think that atheism is giving a definite answer that there is no god. Its just highly unlikely. I cant speak for everyone obviously but thats what I think.

 

It wouldnt make sense for me to believe in a god. I have stated before that of all the crazy theories of what happens after you die, reincarnation is my favorite idea. But I have no logical reason to believe thats what really happens.

 

I guess everyones idea is different. BUt for me atheism is saying that it doesnt make sense to believe there is a god and Im damn sure not going to spend my life praying to one.

 

 


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
/salute

/salute


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace wrote: I

AbandonMyPeace wrote:

I dont think that atheism is giving a definite answer that there is no god. Its just highly unlikely. I cant speak for everyone obviously but thats what I think.

 

Exactly!

 

So again, to the OP.

Do you believe there is a god?

Yes = Theist

No = Atheist 


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
If its the God labeled by

If its the God labeled by man as "God" then No I dont believe.

 

Awnser = Athiest 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Furyan, I'd like to thank

Furyan, I'd like to thank you publicly for calming down and speaking rationally to those who were making an effort to do the same.  We do not ban people for disagreeing.  We ban people for being asses/spamming/trolling.

You are always welcome on these forums so long as you are respectful, and respond thoughtfully to those who take the time out of their days to construct well thought out answers to your questions/comments.

Please enjoy your time on our forums.  We welcome your input.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh yeah sorry. In answer to

Oh yeah sorry. In answer to the original question...Your right..I dont fuckin know. I actually dont care to know. I think its a waste of life to even try to know the answers. Ill find out when Im dead. Not going to sweat it now. Wink


ToddGates
High Level DonorRational VIP!
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-06-04
User is offlineOffline
Furyan wrote: I don't see

Furyan wrote:

I don't see how "Athiesm" is any better than christianity. Yes Christians are brainwashed and delusional and any "proof" you ask them comes from the bible a book written by man.

I am what you call "AGNOSITC" I don't take ANY side. I see your beliefs and theroys no more than assumptions. Your theroys are very good but like beliefs they have flaws.

Im no christian because I have seen no proof of God's existance another reason being the bible's God is a narrowminded Tyrant whom contradicts himself.

I'm not an Athiest because you have YET to prove to me that there may be something intelligant OUT there.

But how are you ANY differant? You have no proof what so ever that there may NOT be something behind our existance and who knows our existance could be one consiencess. You don't fucking know. Nobody fucking knows!

 

Hi Furyan,

I too used to refer to myself as an agnostic, and on the chance that you might be interested, I'll explain what turned me from agnosticism to atheism.

WHY I USED TO CALL MYSELF AGNOSTIC: Like you, organized religions never made any sense to me (for all the obvious reasons). But atheism never made any sense to me (up until the early 1990s, that is) either, mainly for the common "First Cause" and "Design" argument reasons. Yes, I realized that these arguments for a Deity had their problems too---namely "Who caused & designed God?"---but I figured that maybe once you stepped into the world of the supernatural . . . well, you just didn't have to worry about those questions . . . because somehow, well, magic took care of it all. But I also couldn't really make sense out of what kind of deity would create the type of world we live in, or whether this was a deity that kick-started everything and wandered off elsewhere . . . I can't recall exactly how I used to think back in those days, other than it was all a big question mark. My answer to "Do you believe in God?" was "I don't know!", which is why I called myself agnostic.

WHAT MADE ME CHANGE TO ATHEISM: The major shift started with reading Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker. That was the book that made me clearly understand, for the first time, how the unthinking & natural process of evolution could "design" the bat's echolocation, the hawk's eye, the spider's web, etc. It made me understand how life could go, over a period of billions of years, from the simplest single-cell life form to all the wonders (and horrors) that surround us today.

Evolution of course doesn't explain how the first spark of life began . . . but even though science has only (so far) presented guesses on how this might have happened (the primordial soup hypothesis, etc.), one still has to ask "Which is more plausible---that a simpler-than-bacteria cell could have come together without a Creator, or that an infinitely complex Deity could exist without a Creator?"

Using "God" as the answer, in other words, only postpones and amplifies the problem.

The same principle holds true for the question "What created the energy necessary for the start of the Big Bang?" When it comes to figuring out which candidate is the more likely for spontaneous existence (or "always existing" ):

(a) pure energy / infinitely simple mass, or
(b) an infinitely complex unevolved Creator

---the former is the far more plausible.

There's lots more to say, of course, but I'll see how this is received before I continue! (That being said, I probably won't be near a computer again until July 30---so if you respond with questions, I unfortunately won't be able to get back to you until next week.)

Regards,

Todd Allen Gates, author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
People sometimes get

People sometimes get confused between belief and knowledge.  As BGH points out, when talking about belief you're dealing with a binary state - you either do or you don't.  Saying "I don't know" implies a lack of belief because if you did there would be absolutely no uncertainty or room for doubt.

Knowledge is a bit different as it's more concrete than belief - there has to be pretty absolute proof to say we know something.  In this sense we're probably all agnostic as far as religion goes given that neither side can prove or disprove God's existence.

 Summary: You can't be agnostic in terms of belief, only knowledge.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Furyan wrote: I don't see

Furyan wrote:

I don't see how "Athiesm" is any better than christianity. Yes Christians are brainwashed and delusional and any "proof" you ask them comes from the bible a book written by man.

I am what you call "AGNOSITC" I don't take ANY side. I see your beliefs and theroys no more than assumptions. Your theroys are very good but like beliefs they have flaws.

Im no christian because I have seen no proof of God's existance another reason being the bible's God is a narrowminded Tyrant whom contradicts himself.

I'm not an Athiest because you have YET to prove to me that there may be something intelligant OUT there.

But how are you ANY differant? You have no proof what so ever that there may NOT be something behind our existance and who knows our existance could be one consiencess. You don't fucking know. Nobody fucking knows!

Yes I agree with science

YES I am a bigtime skeptic of Ghosts, NDEs, OBEs.

But WHAT gives you ANY of you the right to say "You must belong to either creationism or athiesm? Your so called "Beliefs" is a concept which you human beings have created. I choose not to be a part of ANY of them. I got kicked off your little "Chat" for asking this. Only responses I got was a simple "ur a fag" from alittle twit named paige. WOW HOW INTELLIGANT AND MATURE!

How are you any differant? The very name sounds narrowminded. "Athiest police" Christians force there narrow minded beliefs of control and yet your doing almost the same thing. Metaphorically how are you ANY differant?

Sapient, Brad, Paige you can call me ignorant, kick me off, ban me, Insult my grammar but in truth you are no differant then what you oppose, and truth of that matter I can OWN you in a debate infact I just if you had to kick me. No I wasen't spamming, No I wanesn't bitching. IF ANY of you want to come claim better intelligance. MAKE SURE YOU CAN IT BACK UP!

 

You do realise that the position you have just described is that of an agnostic atheist? You are an athesit my friend, you are also an agnostic. Agnostisim and atheism are not incompatible and I think many here would actually  agree with your position. What areyou actually arguing about here? You already agree with most people on this forum so whats the problem?


ToddGates
High Level DonorRational VIP!
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-06-04
User is offlineOffline
Common misperceptions of atheism vs. agnosticism

I find that in the everyday speech, people unfortunately have a lot of variety in their definitions for "agnostic" vs. "atheist."

In response to the question "Do you believe there is a god?", the answer:

- "I don't know" qualifies the respondent as an atheist by some schools of thought . . .

---whereas the answer:

- "I've yet to see any convincing evidence for a god" qualifies the respondent as an agnostic (!) by those who (mistakenly) think that being an atheist means saying "I KNOW there's no god."

This is why I sometimes skip the label and just spell out that my belief in a Higher Power is similar to my belief in unicorns: I can't "prove" they don't exist, but until there's some evidence for their existence, I see no reason to hold such a belief. (Furthermore, the lack of being able to prove unicorn's non-existence doesn't mean that the probability of their existence vs. non-existence is 50/50.)

Then again, should such evidence ever arise---be it for God or unicorns---I'll be 100% willing to change my position!

- Todd


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Furyan wrote:

Furyan wrote:

Sapient, Brad, Paige you can call me ignorant, kick me off, ban me, Insult my grammar but in truth you are no differant then what you oppose, and truth of that matter I can OWN you in a debate infact I just if you had to kick me. No I wasen't spamming, No I wanesn't bitching. IF ANY of you want to come claim better intelligance. MAKE SURE YOU CAN IT BACK UP!

There's so much ignorance in the world sometimes it feels like I'm helping people overcome it all day long all while the person being helped is a complete asshole. This is what happened in your case, you received one of my very rare kicks from the chatroom, you were officially one of the biggest mixes of asshole/ignorant to visit our room that day.

Your original post has so many flaws here that I can't take time to address them all, specifically when I've addressed them hundreds of times on this site.

This should help teach you: http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Furyan,

Hambydammit wrote:

Furyan, I'd like to thank you publicly for calming down and speaking rationally to those who were making an effort to do the same. We do not ban people for disagreeing. We ban people for being asses/spamming/trolling.

You are always welcome on these forums so long as you are respectful, and respond thoughtfully to those who take the time out of their days to construct well thought out answers to your questions/comments.

I wouldn't mind an apology either, however I don't foresee one.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Furyan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-09
User is offlineOffline
Like I said sorry about

Like I said sorry about that. Sapient you do now have an apology from me. Im 100% athiest to ANY man made diety including the so called "holy spirit"  

Watch the death of the entire Christian religion live!

http://furyangankage.blogspot.com/


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
It's good to have this

It's good to have this semantic argument from time to time. It is unfortunate, however, that it must be had EVERY thread. In doing so we distract from what I believe to be the real topic at hand. The real question is not "which title do you give yourself?" even though I think it is helpful to decide that for the sake of discussion. The real quesiton is "are you thinking or aren't you?"

If we are actually thinking about how we view the world, the ideas of fanciful daydreams will be clearly shown as such. When we ask the question "why do I hold this belief" it will be plain enough which ones make sense and which ones are just twaddle.

When I think of God in the sense of an uber-wizard that farted the world into existance I usually come around to the question "are you fucking serious?"

My point is, if we believe in this silly stuff we are either suffering from a mental disorder or we are not thinking at all...as others have already said. The labels of theist/atheist and agnostic are merely designators of a set of beliefs, they are not relevant in and of themselves.