Atheists report in. - HL2DMU Forum Archive

provost

2009-12-09 18:39:17

What is your definition of god here? what kind of approach are you aiming for.

God as in any gods? The stereotyped long bearded christian god? is any entity considered superior by one being can be called god? be more specific in your request.

What you ask is almost similar to '' I'm writing a paper about cars, help me! ''

However, my theory on the matter:

Humans have ego, we're the only mammals or animals that are not one with ourselves.
Something bad happens and you are overwhelemed by a deep rage, you are furious. Sometime when that happens, you can't clearly remember what you said or what you did during that time. The your mind and body used the 'ego of anger' to deal with a situation.

I'm getting to the point.
Every being (plants or animals) have one role in the universe. Balance. Nature is perfectly balanced. example:

If there are too many rabbits, they might end up eating too much of a specific plant, this specific plant is vital to another species etc.. So what happens is a mysterious sickness comes and kills half of them. Or there could be an increase in foxes, or wolves...

The planet formed 4.54 billion years ago. It's still there. Up and running. Humans have only existed for 200,000 years at best, wich is nothing compared to the numbers of years the face of Earth has seen without us.

As a social race, most tribe, groups, communities etc.. have leaders, this pattern remains today. The wisest one at some point might've realised the power of ego and use it. How easy is it to ensure someone would die for his country, family, or a cause, if he's working for ''the almighty creator itself'' ''we are god's instruments'' '' we will save the planet ''

Pushing technologies even more, being able to clone people, or save someone's life.... all these things we call important, are futile, as a single pandemy can wipe us all out. and then what. Mating, why?. If you remove a god, or resurection, or karma, it all comes down to one thing. It doesn't matter. No matter what we do, at some point we will be removed. Land sunked, Species went instinct and ego all you want, it's gonna be our turn someday. And God or whatever 'greater instance' were man created to save himself. We gave ourselves an imaginary goal, an imaginary purpose.

Without god we'd go insane. I'm I simply there to eat or to be eaten? I'm I simpy part of an echosystem? I'M I NOT IMPORTANT? UNIQUE?

God exists, within us, in many forms. But it also doesn't.

Hope it helps, don't hate plz.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-09 19:07:57

It is an impossibility to prove a God doesn't exist, unless you have total knowledge of the universe, matter and have scoured every possibility.

Not to argue for the existence of God, since that isn't what you want.

One argument against belief in a Deity is that one doesn't believe anything that one can't see and touch or sense with their own senses.
Its called solipsism.

badinfluence

2009-12-09 19:33:29

I'm aiming for proof that there is no such thing as Christianity. This seems like the easiest one to prove that is wrong because I know the most about it. I'm not going for the fact that we evolved. That is a different topic altogether. I'm just going for facts that there is no god.

So far:
-->I've concluded that a higher being has done since biblical times. There have been no miracle makers. There has been nothing else to show that a god does exist.

-->A god has been "made" to show an afterlife. People have something to look forward to when they die. They don't want to go straight to dirt when they die, so they make something up to prove an afterlife. People have said that man wasn't created in god's image, but man created god in his.

-->Why would God bore serial killers and rapists and all the evil in this world? What makes the world better? If God created all, why the evil?

-->It's also very hard to put together the fact that a talking snake convinced a women to eat an apple.

--> Isn't it also said in the bible that the world was perfect when god made the world? If this is so, why would he let evil into the world if it was already perfect?

-->If God is omnipotent, then he knows every "choice" we will ever make, thus rendering them pointless. if we do have free will, then God isn't omnipotent, and therefore, No god.

Book

2009-12-09 20:10:05

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

can write like 3 papers off dem shits

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-09 20:19:19

Well, there is theism and then there is Christianity.

They are not the same thing.
Of course, proving Jesus is not the Son of God does not disprove the existence of God.

You can't prove something DOESN'T exist.
You can only show what does exist within the limits of sense and empirical method.
Folks who believe, have reasons to believe, or faith.
Folks without believe simply don't have a belief.
They have no positive claim to anything.
They are just WITHOUT. A-Theist

Pernicious

2009-12-09 21:09:22

Ive been watching this series called "the universe" latly and they talk about the many ways in which our planet could come to an end, which is kinda funny, this planet will die, its only a matter of time, but how, and how long

Like a magnatar exploding light years away ripping off the earths atmosphere

As for "god", the only curiousity i have about "god" is the existing and well known sub-conscious that resides in all of us, why is it so universal, is it just a result of the fundamental laws of our universe? Is it linked directly to a consciousness that is of the universe itself, giving us all survival instincs etc. Could it be that essentially we are all god, existing in different situations all at once. Or maybe even just the subconscious that is connected somehow to some universal consciousness but our conscious minds seperate.

Fuck knows.

As for proving religion wrong all u have to do is point out the fact that religions are too simple to have explained god or know its ways/rules/lessons etc, god, or the universe is much too complex to have been previously understood.
And even if u do beleive that there was a being or beings that came to earth to form various/singular religions etc. How do u know wat their agendas were. Hell maybe they were doing something sinister or self surving.

BuckyKatt

2009-12-09 21:10:35

The Argumentalizer wrote: You can't prove something DOESN'T exist.

You just argued against an unrestricted negative by stating an unrestricted negative. Have you explored every possible nook and cranny of the known and unknown universe (and knowledge) to know for certain that you can not prove a negative (or non-existance)?

In point of fact you can prove an an unrestricted negative by way of contradiction. Take for example the question "do square circles exist?" By way of contradiction we can show that square circles do not exist. So, to prove God does not exist one need only show that the concept of God is inconsistent or contains contradictions.

The Argumentalizer wrote: Folks who believe, have reasons to believe, or faith.
Folks without believe simply don't have a belief.

Errr... certainly folks who do not believe in God do believe in something and hence have belief. What they typically lack is faith, not belief.

BI... Check here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-a ... /index.htm

Lots of good lectures notes that at least try to be balanced in presenting both sides of the argument.

I also think you need to strength your omnipotent versus freewill argument. You will find some material to strengthen your argument at the MIT site. If need be I can help you expand upon it but you should give it a go yourself first... after all, that is the point of your education.

REJECTED

2009-12-09 21:28:31

One common argument posed to me by Theists is that this planet, this solar system and this whole existence we have is too perfect for there not to be a divine creator, this all couldn't have just happened?! And my general response to this is that there are trillions of planets that we have observed, and we are observing more and more everyday. (Side note: In 2014 an even better Hubble telescope is going to launched into space that will use infrared to peer even deeper into space.) It is absolutely possible to have life on one of these planets, and not just one, but thousands, even millions. The nearest earth-like planet is some 4.37 light years from our sun, and there are others that have been identified as well.

A counter question to this is, so you believe in the Biblical story? Of course they say. I continue with, so where did all these dinosaurs and these human skeletons from thousands and thousands of years ago come from? The response is normally an angry one and they do not want an actual debate on the subject, they plug their ears so to speak.

I believe there is no possible way to prove there is no god, at least at this time, that does not mean there is one however. I have no belief in a god or gods, however I still hold that there still could be some kind of divine creator. The probability? Near zero. If there is one, I doubt it is the classical bible one either. You may call me a weak atheist or an agnostic atheist for that reason.

The rabbit hole as far as science has uncovered thus far really does go deep and I don't see god in any of it.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-09 21:37:18

Yes, it is an unrestricted negative, only to show the absurdity of claiming soemthing doesn't exist.
I suppose i could have gone into why saying SOMETHING doesn't EXIST is a contradiction.

One can fail find God both ways, through a philosophical impossibility and by way of a futile searching of the entire universe.

Either way, you end up with nothing.

My point was BELIEF in GOD is faith and belief in fact is positive and within the limits of the senses.
Just talking about GOD as a universal concept, gives it SOME form of existence, according to Plato.
=================================================
"Errr... certainly folks who do not believe in God do believe in something and hence have belief. What they typically lack is faith, not belief."

You are arguing semantics. Folks who lack belief in GOD do not have a positive belief in GOD, was my point.
I never said they didn't have OTHER types of beliefs, as the convo is not ABOUT other issues, but Atheism.

s0iz

2009-12-09 22:18:15

Blasphemy

2009-12-09 22:20:20

/thread

provost

2009-12-09 22:28:43

Blasphemy, you win the prize.

BuckyKatt

2009-12-09 22:39:27

The Argumentalizer wrote:Yes, it is an unrestricted negative, only to show the absurdity of claiming soemthing doesn't exist.
I suppose i could have gone into why saying SOMETHING doesn't EXIST is a contradiction.

I would be interested in this because, as I previously stated, it is possible to prove something does not exist by way of contradiction. It seems you are trying to argue that saying something doesn't exist is a contradiction itself but that is patently and obviously false.

A married bachelor does not exist. Proof: By definition married indicates that one has a wife. By definition bachelor indicates that one does not have a wife. Since it is impossible for a thing to both possess A and ~A then it is proven that married bachelors do not exist.

I have just proven the nonexistence of something by contradiction. Of course my example was a bit contrived but this was also how square circles were proven to not exist (in short squaring the circle is impossible because pi is transcendental and so one can not construct 4 even sides from a circle, hence square circles do not exist). This is also how it is shown that no "largest number" exists. Proving that something does not exist by way of contradiction is not only possible but is relatively common.

Likewise to prove that God does not exist one need only show that concept of God is contradictory.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your intention.

The Argumentalizer wrote:You are arguing semantics.

Sort of. More I am seeking precision in words that may mean one thing to one person and an entirely different thing to another.

Pernicious

2009-12-09 22:43:47

Fuck i hate the word faith, its completly useless.

Faith:
# Christianity, The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. <-----GAY!
# A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny <-----GAY!

Pretty much it just means ignorance.

Why do ppl even use that word, honestly wen someone uses that word its like they are only saying it because they have nothing to say, i dont get it.
Faith, have faith, WHY? WHAT THE FUCK! WHAT DO YOU MEAN!!??
Faith means to close off ur mind to certain possibilities, like the fact that there may not be any god or prescence at all, or that wateva it/we are/is, just isnt anything like u expected, and maybe doesnt even exist on a conscious level at all.

Why have faith wen u can just be open. I seriously just got a slight headache wen trying to contemplate the purpose of the word faith (in religious terms), and even though it was not severe, i never get headaches! Its as if it was designed for the sole purpose of bringing it up amoungst philisophical debate in an attempt to side track ur opponent, or thats wat it beccame through self delusion.

And i have had arguments with religious ppl in the past, it seems they allways want to quote the bible to prove that the bible is indeed truth, and i just say that u cant prove something to be true by quoting its own text, there must be external proof or reason to beleive in the text.

And FYI blas, u may notice that some of the more devote christians/watevs are ppl who have had emotional injury in the past, simply because wen tragidy strikes ppl have different ways of dealing with it and some cling to religion. Obvious i know, but wen u actually see it in real life its like straight out of a movie, and then to have them admit to u that they have had "life changing experiences/tragidies" u just think well fuck, case closed cya lata.

Blasphemy

2009-12-09 22:49:44

Link

Uncle Rico

2009-12-09 23:22:49

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Two things about the movie Religulous:
1. There's a church on the side of the interstate about the 7-8 minute mark that I pass all the time. It's the one that looks like a long shed with crosses and a smaller shed out front that is seen when they are talking about taking some back roads to Raleigh.
2. The sign they show a few seconds later of West Park Baptist Church - I beat up the pastor's son in high school.

Trompe-la-Mort

2009-12-09 23:35:18

I'm not here as atheist nor theist. I'm just here to hopefully prevent some later being accused of 'covering their ears', and hopefully to broaden the discussion.

Just one point for the moment:

Pernicious wrote: Faith:
# Christianity, The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. <-----GAY!
# A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny <-----GAY!

Pretty much it just means ignorance.

Ignorance, in this case, is exactly what's required for there to exist a god. A god cannot be predictable, as that would require giving up agency(free will, as hinted in a post before) and also would require laws above that god that make it predictable. So there will always be an element of ignorance to human destiny if given that there exists a god, or even free agents all together.

The discussion of concepts like free-will is currently marred in materialistic terms. There are a few proponents, but most seem to me to view the universe as deterministic, and therefore choice is viewed an illusion.

Dostoevsky made the best agument for agency I've come accross when he said that when mankind once and for all knows the position and direction/ velocity of all the particles in the universe, that will be the last day that the universe is deterministic. The first thing a human being would do when it's charted what he'll do, is do something else. The condition of human existence isn't survival first and foremost, but to show yourself and others around you that you ARE NOT predictable. People in general would sometimes rather die than give anything control, or at least COMPLETE control.

Head Like a Hole is relevant here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTs5SoOteQQ

Paradox

2009-12-10 01:42:32

If humans came about strictly from evolution, why has the bona fide "missing link" not been found?

The reason that there is evil/bad people in the world is that God wanted man to choose his own path: to be good or to be evil, to believe or not. God doesnt want a bunch of robots/slaves running around.

There are things in the world and in history that can not be proven by pure science alone. I dont have the time atm to list them right now but I will try to some time soon.

One I can think of is the Shroud of Turin.
I believe that there are also examples of missing time in history that can only be accounted for from stories in the bible. Once science accounted for them, the timeline was corrected.

Ill try to get some others and post them.

Ko-Tao

2009-12-10 01:48:58

The Argumentalizer wrote:It is an impossibility to prove a God doesn't exist, unless you have total knowledge of the universe, matter and have scoured every possibility.

Its generally impossible to prove anything doesnt exist, hence the reason the burden of proof is always on the claimant(s) to prove whatever theyve dreamed up does exist.

So far, regarding gods or other imaginary friend type entities, the proved-to-exist count is, unsurprisingly, zero. I dont think anyone sane expects this to change in the foreseeable future, either.

Anyway, my contribution to the semi-related pic/link collection:

Trompe-la-Mort

2009-12-10 02:06:56

Of course we're looking for proofs for the nonexistence of god. Just weeding out false positives, so here's to Epicurus.

My first thought is why the 33AD? Why not 333BC, or 333BCE to the PC's out there? That would be closer to his time.

A god not wanting others to have god-like attributes--like free agency--might be willing to prevent evil. This as long as that god could also be predicted not only to not like evil, but also to do something about it everywhere it pops up. Of course now we must ask what is evil? To the god, evil is probably doing that 'something else' that goes against the god. Some gods I've heard want us to provide for the sick, needy, etc. (That there are sick people, or that even people age is still one of the top mysteries of human existence, imo. Let me explain: We grow and grow when we are young, completely able to keep our cells in top-rate condition, generally speaking, and to heal them faster than they're damaged. Then at about 20, there's a mysterious reversal in this process.) But there can hypothetically be any number of things that could be evil to a god.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
- Epicurus

The conclusion then can be amusing.
Let's say that god is not willing to prevent evil. Just as a defense of its 'unwillingness' it could be because it comes at the expense of a god(itself)-given attribute, say, free agency. Also let's say that the god is completely able to stop evil if it wanted to as this wouldn't contradict Epicurus' agument. Well then, Epicurus' whole conclusion stems from that adjective in the middle. The rest are questions that don't apply. And that adjective, without further definition or explaination is easily . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck

Ko-Tao wrote: Its generally impossible to prove anything doesnt exist, hence the reason the burden of proof is always on the claimant(s) to prove whatever theyve dreamed up does exist.

This is why it might be more interesting to write a paper on the arguments for a god or gods. But the op's choice.

There are positive arguments and negative arguments. BOTH are equally impossible to prove. Whether or not a thing 'exists' is a metaphysical question in the sense that even holding up an object in front of a person and saying 'see?' does not entail it exists. It may entail the subject is hearing a 'see?' and viewing an object, completely subjective experience. A person may reject it with a number of reasons: insanity, solipsism, or even as an exersice of their own free will to do so. Looking for proof in an absolute sense is futle if we are really agents with free choice. There are only reasons and aguments.

Pernicious

2009-12-10 02:47:14

Yea, the other thing to point out is the fact that no act or situation could be considered "evil" to a god, as a god can understand the reason/history behind every act and every person, animal, etc.
Every state of mind is simply a result of a situation so how do we label it evil? For the same reason we label certain ppl insane, its for the simple purpose of pointing out wat is inconvenient to our societies. This is why certain acts are that are considered evil in our culture are not in others. For example, muslims shooting their wives in the face with an AK47 wen they suspect they are commiting adultery, or just feel like it

etc.
That Epicurus thing though, is a good argument against christianity as it argues on christianities terms. But means nothing to me watsoeva personally as my current understanding allows me to see that things are much much much more complicated then that, and yes i know i mentioned that

Mr. Nervous

2009-12-10 03:58:30

Paradox wrote:If humans came about strictly from evolution, why has the bona fide "missing link" not been found?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolu ... art-1.html

A great series about the whole "missing link" topic, it argues that there isn't 1 missing link, but that there are many different links between our now human race and original apes.

Also, to BI, I think it was Richard Dawkins that said Christianity argues that God is in all places, evident in all nature, so you cannot argue that you must look into "every nook and cranny of the universe", because if God is everywhere, then no matter where we look we should find God.

s0iz

2009-12-10 04:32:19

How can I prove you guys really exists and this is not all a dream?

provost

2009-12-10 04:45:21

s0iz wrote:How can I prove you guys really exists and this is not all a dream?

dreams tend to be a lil more like this:

CellarDweller

2009-12-10 05:29:52

really? you have the entire internet at your disposal, and you choose this forum for your research?

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-10 05:43:58

Bucky Katt: "I have just proven the nonexistence of something by contradiction."

I am not sure you have proven anything. A contradiction MAY exist.

My point is that one must separate what is opinion, what is a working body of knowledge and what is absolute truth.

Proof takes an awful lot of tedious work to arrive.
Most of what we call knowledge belongs in the MUTABLE best that we know depending on our limited methods of perception body of knowledge.
It is mutable, constantly updated as we learn more.

The answer to the existence of God may never come. It is debated, both sides suffering a lack of ultimate proof or absolutes.
It is unwise to suggest GOD is nonsense. It is a statement of fact without the facts that prove it and they are unlikely to arrive any time soon.

The way i see it, Atheists not having belief in a higher intelligence or being is JUST FINE. Perfectly acceptable.
What is NOT is the road that some take, arriving at outlandish statements like religion is the root of all man's problems or belief is detrimental.
These are statements of fact that are unsupported.
They are also false.

Edit: Maybe to get directly to the point: You cannot prove a negative. Proof is a positive claim of existence revealed by method.
It is impossible to show proof of NULL. for something not to exist, there can be no proff, since it doesn't exist.
The argument for theism may lie beyond our capacity to understand with our current tools.

Pern: "Fuck i hate the word faith, its completly useless.

Faith:
# Christianity, The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. <-----GAY!
# A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny <-----GAY!

Pretty much it just means ignorance."

It is possible to believe in a creator without being a Christian.
It is possible to be an agnostic and still be a Theist.
It is possible to believe in a deity or creator that doesn't control humanity.
It is possible to follow the Judeo-Christian canon without believing everything in the Bible as fact.
It is possible to believe God is more than a bearded man in the sky.
It is possible to believe in GOD and still reject the GOOD.
It is possible to follow all the rules and still **** up.
It is possible to allow others there beliefs without being an asshole.
And Einstein was a THEIST.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-10 06:11:56

So Ko, do you believe Atheism leads to a more perfect human or human existence?!?!

Theism has history of Nations and culture to recommend it, while you have nothing at all to recommend your attitude.

I wonder, Ko Tao, if you can show some trend or proof that Atheism builds better civilizations, cultures, and social structures.
You allude to a better world without religion.
WHAT better world?!?!
The Soviet Union?

Is North Korea your example of enlightened casting off of ancient and outmoded beliefs?
How about Pol Pot's Cambodia?

LMAO!
You offer nothing but venom. You have no comfort, no solace, no nothing really.
Its probably why most human's reject your extreme close minded and boderline totalitarian ideas.

Paradox

2009-12-10 07:07:36

Mr. Nervous wrote:A great series about the whole "missing link" topic, it argues that there isn't 1 missing link, but that there are many different links between our now human race and original apes.

Also, to BI, I think it was Richard Dawkins that said Christianity argues that God is in all places, evident in all nature, so you cannot argue that you must look into "every nook and cranny of the universe", because if God is everywhere, then no matter where we look we should find God.

Just a theory

Well if he is truely God, who says you CAN "see" him anyway? At least as we mean "see" in the physical sense. However I think they mean that God is evident in other ways beyond the literal meaning of the word "see" I am too fucking tired right now to really delve into it more than that. This is an interesting conversation though, carry on

<kyle>

2009-12-10 08:12:44

(10:07:27 PM) Ko-Tao: come on man
(10:07:33 PM) Ko-Tao: YOU JUST GOTTA HAVE FAITH
(10:10:34 PM) Ko-Tao: faith being a more closed-minded variety of hope, hope equating to the denial of reality, denial of reality being a known mental illness

Ko-Tao

2009-12-10 08:55:42

The Argumentalizer wrote:So Ko, do you believe Atheism leads to a more perfect human or human existence?!?!

Theism has history of Nations and culture to recommend it, while you have nothing at all to recommend your attitude.

I wonder, Ko Tao, if you can show some trend or proof that Atheism builds better civilizations, cultures, and social structures.
You allude to a better world without religion.
WHAT better world?!?!
The Soviet Union?

Is North Korea your example of enlightened casting off of ancient and outmoded beliefs?
How about Pol Pot's Cambodia?

LMAO!
You offer nothing but venom. You have no comfort, no solace, no nothing really.
Its probably why most human's reject your extreme close minded and boderline totalitarian ideas.

I offered a single comment on the burden of proof and a silly jpeg. Youre the one going off about venom, comfort, solace etc and mentioning north korea, cambodia and russia completely out of context. But since you did mention them- sure those areas are/were supposedly atheist, just like most of the most warlike / insane parts of the middle east and the majority of the broken parts of africa are supposedly deeply religious. Bad examples on both sides, hmm, must be something more to it than religion or lack thereof!

Edit: lol @ that old irc comment, true story though!

BuckyKatt

2009-12-10 09:16:06

The Argumentalizer wrote: I am not sure you have proven anything. A contradiction MAY exist.

Are you suggesting that my proof may not show a contradiction and is there for invalid or are you suggesting that one of the three classic laws of thought (the law of noncontradiction) which is the basis for the most prevalent form of proof that has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny is actually invalid?

If it is the later I suspect no reasonable discourse is possible with you.

The Argumentalizer wrote: It is unwise to suggest GOD is nonsense. It is a statement of fact without the facts that prove it and they are unlikely to arrive any time soon.

I never said God was nonsense. I simply stated that to prove God does not exist one need simply show that the idea of God is contradictory or includes a logical fallacy.

The Argumentalizer wrote: The way i see it, Atheists not having belief in a higher intelligence or being is JUST FINE. Perfectly acceptable.
What is NOT is the road that some take, arriving at outlandish statements like religion is the root of all man's problems or belief is detrimental.
These are statements of fact that are unsupported.
They are also false.

I also never said nor implied that "religion is the root of all man's problems or belief is detrimental." Indeed I would say that man and his tendency towards willful ignorance is the root of the majority of man's problems. I do believe it is debatable whether the good that religion has done balances out all the evil that has been done in religion or God's name. I also believe that if people broke free from their willful ignorance and learned to accept personal responsibility for their lives instead of abdicating it to the state or God that their overall well being would be improved and the net good in the world would increase.

The Argumentalizer wrote: Edit: Maybe to get directly to the point: You cannot prove a negative. Proof is a positive claim of existence revealed by method.
It is impossible to show proof of NULL. for something not to exist, there can be no proff, since it doesn't exist.

As I said earlier it is possible to prove a negative. You can prove nonexistence. The problem your having is that you are only acknowledging direct proof. Of course it is impossible to directly prove nonexistence because as you state, it doesn't exist. Fortunately logic provides us with many other tools for proofs beyond direct proof. There is proof by induction, transposition, construction, exhaustion (which you were arguing for earlier where you implied we would need to search the entire universe), and of course contradiction.

Countless proofs exist that prove a negative: The proof that the square root of 2 is not rational, the proof that squaring a circle is not possible (i.e. square circles do not exist), the proof that integers are limitless, etc are all negative proofs. I could provide you with rigorous proofs of any of these but some how I suspect that even a universally accepted proof for one of these would not dissuade you from believing that you can not prove a negative.

Your continued insistence that you can not prove a negative leads me to conclude you are desperate to cling to your beliefs despite any evidence to the contrary and that no rational argument is possible with you. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as this is almost always how it ends when a man of reason argues with a man of faith.

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna

REJECTED

2009-12-10 09:38:51

The Argumentalizer wrote:And Einstein was a THEIST.

Einstein was not a theist, and Hawking is certainly not one either. They are highly misunderstood with their use of the word "God"; I'll quote Einstein:

Albert Einstein wrote: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein wrote: I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

Albert Einstein wrote: You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist...

God to them, is a metaphorical one, representing the universe, synonymous with 'Nature.'

Steven Weinberg wrote: Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Ko-Tao

2009-12-10 10:04:44

BuckyKatt wrote:...I also believe that if people broke free from their willful ignorance and learned to accept personal responsibility for their lives instead of abdicating it to the state or God that their overall well being would be improved and the net good in the world would increase.

Indeed.

Pernicious

2009-12-10 13:41:23

Yea, god is the universe. Thats how i think of it.
Its silly to think that "god" is a singular dude with a consciousness like our own.

CellarDweller

2009-12-10 17:45:04

Ko-Tao wrote:
BuckyKatt wrote:...I also believe that if people broke free from their willful ignorance and learned to accept personal responsibility for their lives instead of abdicating it to the state or God that their overall well being would be improved and the net good in the world would increase.
Indeed.

not sure what leads you to this conclusion. seems to me one of the foundational properties of christianity is accepting personal responsibility for your sins.

Shoobie

2009-12-10 18:33:47

First question, why do this? It's already been done. It probably won't get you anywhere anyway, it's like if the Christians would try to convince you there's a God. Will you listen? No. Will they listen at you? No.

Not stopping you though. You can waste your time doing something other people already have done or just leave it be. Give them the God delusion or something instead.

Edge

2009-12-10 19:27:40

Shoobie wrote:First question, why do this? It's already been done. It probably won't get you anywhere anyway, it's like if the Christians would try to convince you there's a God. Will you listen? No. Will they listen at you? No.

Not stopping you though. You can waste your time doing something other people already have done or just leave it be. Give them the God delusion or something instead.

I think hes just doing it for a school paper to get a good grade : P

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-10 23:04:19

Ko Tao: You chose to use that cartoon to speak for you. It says those who believe are dumbshits and such. I call that venom.
And you go on to ignore my questions and points about atheism in action in the Soviet block, North korea, and Cambodia. You have no defense for these points.
You insinuate mankind would be better off without religion, yet pose no example or rebuttals to millions of dead at the hands of atheists.
It figures.
While i am no closer to proving GOD, your case is also completely unsupported.
China: tens of millions dead
Russia: tens of millions starved by a Communist Gubbmint
Cambodia: 3 million or more slaughtered in the name of a godless state.

The point of religion is THE GOOD. A moral structure governing civil societies. A personal outlook that is positive in nature.

All this stuff about WAR is nonsense. One can find some terrorism, some militants... and inflate that to indict BILLIONS of folks who believe in something higher.
Its nonsense, reactionary ignorance.

One final point for Ko Tao: Answer this question- Has Christ been a positive influence on mankind through history or a destructive force.
Also- do you characterize a billion Muslims as terrorists and militants?
Let's see you answer those.

Cynips

2009-12-10 23:06:37

Without reading through the thread I'm posting this anyway since I have to go put the kids to bed soon.

No, you can't prove logically that god doesn't exist. However, you can approach it the scientifically empirical way. Let's instead try to asses the probability of god's existence. You'll end up with god being highly unlikely, bordering on an analogy of the mathematical limes. Maybe we can say that the probability is so close to zero that it is zero.

Anyway, go read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for a thorough treatment of the matter.

If nothing else, there's absolutely no evidence in favor of god's existence.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-10 23:16:07

BuckyKatt: "Are you suggesting that my proof may not show a contradiction and is there for invalid or are you suggesting that one of the three classic laws of thought (the law of noncontradiction) which is the basis for the most prevalent form of proof that has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny is actually invalid?"

I am saying you are talking about formal theory governing proof.
In theory, a contradiction cannot exist. That is in THEORY.

What i am saying is, what if we find a contradiction in reality? Thermodynamics for instance.
The universe is in a constant state of DECAY, yet, we have organic life forms and new stars born.
This is a contradiction.
What do we do? Say it can't be because of theory?
What of Quantum Physics, that points to all manner of truly spooky connected behavior of particles ?
The more we examine the Quantum universe, the stranger it becomes.

In the end, atheists cannot prove a nonexistence.
And i believe in a creator ONLY because the creation of the universe, matter, energy, life, by some random happening, without design is completely ABSURD.
That is all i need. An Argument, unproven.

scott5245

2009-12-10 23:24:59

The Argumentalizer wrote:BuckyKatt: "Are you suggesting that my proof may not show a contradiction and is there for invalid or are you suggesting that one of the three classic laws of thought (the law of noncontradiction) which is the basis for the most prevalent form of proof that has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny is actually invalid?"

I am saying you are talking about formal theory governing proof.
In theory, a contradiction cannot exist. That is in THEORY.

What i am saying is, what if we find a contradiction in reality? Thermodynamics for instance.
The universe is in a constant state of DECAY, yet, we have organic life forms and new stars born.
This is a contradiction.
What do we do? Say it can't be because of theory?
What of Quantum Physics, that points to all manner of truly spooky connected behavior of particles ?
The more we examine the Quantum universe, the stranger it becomes.

In the end, atheists cannot prove a nonexistence.
And i believe in a creator ONLY because the creation of the universe, matter, energy, life, by some random happening, without design is completely ABSURD.
That is all i need. An Argument, unproven.

random capital letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pernicious

2009-12-11 01:03:42

The Argumentalizer wrote:Theism has history of Nations and culture to recommend it, while you have nothing at all to recommend your attitude.

I wonder, Ko Tao, if you can show some trend or proof that Atheism builds better civilizations, cultures, and social structures.
You allude to a better world without religion.
WHAT better world?!?!
The Soviet Union?

Is North Korea your example of enlightened casting off of ancient and outmoded beliefs?
How about Pol Pot's Cambodia?

People have allways segregated based on irrational beliefs/superstitions/bias (religion or no), but those societies arent much different to religious based societies wen u think about it, comparing 2 kinds of irrational thought doesnt really have any relevance IMO. I think the point is, as ppl of the more Americanised cultures all give up religion, progress will speed up more and more, as their will be no irrational hurdles.
I know that wen i said that things would have progressed more without religion, i was speaking more about our own culture and the ones closely related to or influenced by. Not nazi's, wat do nazi's(which were not athiest) have to down with our own technological advancement.

As for the athiests case being completly unsupported, im not sure wat that means, to be an athiest is to be open to anything pretty much, eccept small minded simplistic views of the universe ie religious texts. So if your saying our case against religion is unsupported, i think thats just fail of epic proportions.

lead

2009-12-11 01:28:07

Cynips wrote:Without reading through the thread I'm posting this anyway since I have to go put the kids to bed soon.

No, you can't prove logically that god doesn't exist. However, you can approach it the scientifically empirical way. Let's instead try to asses the probability of god's existence. You'll end up with god being highly unlikely, bordering on an analogy of the mathematical limes. Maybe we can say that the probability is so close to zero that it is zero.

Anyway, go read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for a thorough treatment of the matter.

If nothing else, there's absolutely no evidence in favor of god's existence.

yes Dawkins is the way to go... here he is taking on bill o'reilly who obviously hadnt had an intelligent argument before

but try proving God doesnt exist; why should people who believe need to prove anything lol
http://tinyurl.com/yf3fuke

Blasphemy

2009-12-11 01:35:10

Impala is the reason, bi asked only for the non believers to respond.

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2009-12-11 02:29:13

ill just leave this here

Ko-Tao

2009-12-11 03:22:00

Christian Englands / Frances usurping of north america... how many dead?
Catholic Spains invasion of south america... how many dead?
Oh ya, and about those crusades, the inquisition etc.

Blaming religion or lack thereof for these examples is foolish anyway. The fault lies with the people themselves, always. My point was only that religion is ultimately worthless, as it has no basis in fact or reality, and offers absolutely nothing useful or beneficial that could not be found or had in its absence.

ninjins

2009-12-11 03:29:26

{EE}chEmicalBurn wrote:ill just leave this here

House is the man.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-11 10:00:13

BI has enough to write a paper. One doesn't believe because one doesn't have any proof of God's existence.

Its that simple. Really, that is enough to win any argument. You literally don't have the evidence to believe it.
The folks that do have their reasons.

badinfluence

2009-12-11 17:24:12

Thanks.

BuckyKatt

2009-12-11 18:26:48

The Argumentalizer wrote: And i believe in a creator ONLY because the creation of the universe, matter, energy, life, by some random happening, without design is completely ABSURD.

Actually, it is more likely that you believe in a creator because evolutionary biology has humans predisposed to believe in the supernatural and to see purpose, intention, and design even when it does not exist.

The Argumentalizer wrote: One doesn't believe because one doesn't have any proof of God's existence.

I suspect that it is not lack of proof of God's existence that accounts for most atheists. It is the large and growing body of evidence that suggests that God is a myth that accounts for the large and growing body of atheists. Inductive proofs are inherently weak but they tend to gain steam as more evidence is piled on top of them.

keefy

2009-12-11 21:52:37

Why do those that don't believe have to prove God doesn't exist?
I am not an atheist nor a believer.

Pernicious

2009-12-11 21:54:57

The Argumentalizer wrote:And i believe in a creator ONLY because the creation of the universe, matter, energy, life, by some random happening, without design is completely ABSURD.

Well no, if there is a multiverse, and ours is one of many, others having different laws then ours, then it is not a matter of some random happening at all, but rather, a matter of probability.

Pernicious

2009-12-11 21:56:47

keefy wrote:Why do those that don't believe have to prove God doesn't exist?

Actually its more about proving religion to be wrong then god specifically. Or proving that there is no god as most ppl imagine there would be.

Cynips

2009-12-11 23:37:10

BuckyKatt wrote:
The Argumentalizer wrote: And i believe in a creator ONLY because the creation of the universe, matter, energy, life, by some random happening, without design is completely ABSURD.
Actually, it is more likely that you believe in a creator because evolutionary biology has humans predisposed to believe in the supernatural and to see purpose, intention, and design even when it does not exist.

The Argumentalizer wrote: One doesn't believe because one doesn't have any proof of God's existence.
I suspect that it is not lack of proof of God's existence that accounts for most atheists. It is the large and growing body of evidence that suggests that God is a myth that accounts for the large and growing body of atheists. Inductive proofs are inherently weak but they tend to gain steam as more evidence is piled on top of them.

Very well put. Applause to you, sir!

Blasphemy

2009-12-11 23:51:33

keefy wrote:Why do those that don't believe have to prove God doesn't exist?
I am not an atheist nor a believer.

agnostic?

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-12 01:36:06

BuckyKatt: "I suspect that it is not lack of proof of God's existence that accounts for most atheists. It is the large and growing body of evidence that suggests that God is a myth that accounts for the large and growing body of atheists. Inductive proofs are inherently weak but they tend to gain steam as more evidence is piled on top of them."

You can suspect all you like. I'll stick with the exact reasons i gave.

Also, i am not aware of any body of evidence, scientific proof, that PROVES God is just a myth.
I also might challenge your claim that human's are predisposed to believe in the supernatural across the board and your claim Atheists are a large group and growing.

I have read the CASE AGAINST GOD and portions of Dawkins. It's an argument more than a body of evidence.

It is indeed a lack of seeing proof of a God that results in Atheists, and not any body of evidence that proves a nonexistence.
Quantum physics has uncovered behaviors and actions completely unexplained by current scientific methods.
Ask the physicists. There is some truly spooky things going on we can't explain.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124147752556985009.html

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2008/813/3

There is an entire world of sub-atomic particles and string theory and such that is unexplored.

Blasphemy

2009-12-12 01:43:31

Uncle Rico

2009-12-12 01:47:45

: 1260561373511.jpg (40.42 KiB) Viewed 199 times

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-12 01:49:27

I don't have to justify or prove a damn thing to atheists.
That is the truth of it.
If the Atheists have all the science on their side, put it up there. Let's see it.
Sagan's or Stephen Hawkings personal belief system is no concern of mine.
Evidently, just mentioning their names makes an argument stronger, by osmosis, i suppose.

Nobody wants to answer a few simple questions.
Is Atheism the force that built the modern west?
Does Atheism lead to better society and more perfect human's?
Does Science answer every human need?
What about the trail of millions dead at the hand of Atheists?
It dwarfs the conflict of religions.

Almost half of scientists claim to be religious.
I suppose that is a contradiction?

Pernicious

2009-12-12 02:44:45

"Almost half of scientists claim to be religious."

Negative, beleiving in something universal is not religion.
And in any case scientists can range from lab geeks to uber smart theoretical physicists etc, It wouldnt surprise me if there were alot of scientists of average intelligence and even some of higher who were religious but definitly not half, and certainly none of the top intellects.

"Nobody wants to answer a few simple questions."

They were adressed, by me and Ko, allready.

And yes there are many aspects of the universe we dont understand hence why i have allready said that the universe is way too complex to have been previously understood. This is an argument against religion as far as i am concerned, how can u beleive whole heartedly in something wen there is so much uncertainty.

I do have a question for u though, why do u defend religion, if u are not actually strictly religious.

Blasphemy

2009-12-12 02:56:14

The Argumentalizer wrote: Does Atheism lead to better society and more perfect human's?

how does someone become more perfect?

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-12 04:05:57

"I do have a question for u though, why do u defend religion, if u are not actually strictly religious."

What do you mean, strictly religious?!?
I actually defend Atheism and religion, simultaneously.
See, atheists often don't understand the discussion they are having.
They seem to be on the side of science, or arguing science or whatever.
The case for religion does not rest with science.
Science does not answer everything, nor does science satisfy certain things for people, a spiritual side.

Atheism is simply WITHOUT a belief in a deity or higher power or creator.
It does not make any positive satisfying points on its own.
In fact, once religion is rejected, one may be right back in an unexplained void.

When you spiritually need something, cry out in despair, science is of no use to you.
Neither is Atheism.
Religion FILLS a need.
Atheism does not.

Atheism is a thoroughly strong and legitimate stance, but doesn't help explain the universe.
Science also does not explain the design and creation of the universe.

So, atheists don't understand the discussion or the place that religion has in mankind.
And they avoid all questions as too the results of Communist Atheism, while insinuating their way is better.
I see no proof of that.
In fact, i see an unfulfilled void that WILL be filled somehow.
============================================================
Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists
By Elaine Howard Ecklund
Published on: Feb 05, 2007
Elaine Howard Ecklund is assistant professor of sociology at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. Her first book, Korean
American Evangelicals: New Models for Civic Life was published with Oxford University Press in 2006. Ecklund is the
principal investigator of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study.

"It should also be kept in mind that, whether or not academic scientists openly discuss
religion, a large minority is religious and the majority is interested in matters of spirituality. This
leaves a sizeable population of scientists who are possibly crucial commentators in the context of
an American public searching for a way to meaningfully connect religion and science. That the
scientists in this population are from elite universities makes them all the more potentially
influential in such a dialogue."

Pernicious

2009-12-12 05:38:10

The Argumentalizer wrote:"I do have a question for u though, why do u defend religion, if u are not actually strictly religious."

Atheism is simply WITHOUT a belief in a deity or higher power or creator.
It does not make any positive satisfying points on its own.
In fact, once religion is rejected, one may be right back in an unexplained void.

When you spiritually need something, cry out in despair, science is of no use to you.
Neither is Atheism.
Religion FILLS a need.
Atheism does not.

So your saying that mental weakness/vulnerability is a good reason for religion?
First of all, belief for the sake of mental masturbation is how religion started in the first place, so, it starts off with a story, the story turns into a lie, the lie turns into religion. Shouldnt u beware of this? I mean, if u know its only to make ur self feel better, isnt it irresponsible to invest urself in something like this, since u know, ppl have been believing for the same reason dating all the way back to the beginning?

And yea, u say that science doesnt satisfy ppls spiritual side, but how does pretending, or even devotion to something that was tought to u by someone who themselves could not possibly have any idea about the universe...satisfy anything, my answer is, it doesnt, all it is, is a fantacy. Atleast with science there are theories and things to stimulate the imagination, its very interesting, religion is not, nor does it stimulate the mind in any helpfull way wat so eva.

And why do u keep claiming that all communist nations were/are athiest, there is no such regime that is specifically athiest, they are typical of the general populations culture, some being religious, some not. Religion exists strongly in any communist regime, as communism actually has nothing to do with religion at all.

I did a little google on hitler:

People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. Although one of Hitler's henchmen, Alfred Rosenberg, did undertake a campaign of Nordic mythological propaganda, Hitler and most of his henchmen did not believe in it .

Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler's "evil" have eliminated Hitler's god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler's God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics. He spoke, unashamedly, about God, fanaticism, idealism, dogma, and the power of propaganda. Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

link: http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
Homepage: http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Hitler was brought up as a roman catholic and was an alter boy.,....

Pernicious

2009-12-12 05:52:04

The Argumentalizer wrote: "It should also be kept in mind that, whether or not academic scientists openly discuss
religion, a large minority is religious and the majority is interested in matters of spirituality. This
leaves a sizeable population of scientists who are possibly crucial commentators in the context of
an American public searching for a way to meaningfully connect religion and science. That the
scientists in this population are from elite universities makes them all the more potentially
influential in such a dialogue."

Yes, a minority are religious, like i said.
And the majorities interest in spiritual matters is exaclty as i allready knew. But they arent religious. As in they dont beleive in any simplistic religious texts.
Being spiritual and being religious can be 2 different things, though my own thoughts on the matter are not of a spiritual nature i guess i can understand it, ppl have emotional based thoughts, needs, and that causes them to look for meaning in things they cant explain. That to me though is silly, its like saying, oh i cant figure it out so there must be something magical going on.
*shrugs*

Sacrifist

2009-12-12 06:15:15

Link

REJECTED

2009-12-12 06:19:52

I can't get enough of Carlin, he's a legend as far as I'm concerned.

ninjins

2009-12-12 07:04:24

The Argumentalizer wrote:
Atheism is simply WITHOUT a belief in a deity or higher power or creator.
It does not make any positive satisfying points on its own.
In fact, once religion is rejected, one may be right back in an unexplained void.

ACTUALLY, you mean being agnostic is simply without a belief in a deity.

Atheists still believe that there is no god. Which in itself, is a belief.

Walking Target

2009-12-12 07:18:39

TiGGy wrote:
The Argumentalizer wrote:
Atheism is simply WITHOUT a belief in a deity or higher power or creator.
It does not make any positive satisfying points on its own.
In fact, once religion is rejected, one may be right back in an unexplained void.
ACTUALLY, you mean being agnostic is simply without a belief in a deity.

Atheists still believe that there is no god. Which in itself, is a belief.

Semantics. It's a common misconception that there are three options with agnostics sitting on the fence. There are actually four combinations. Gnostic = to know. You are talking about the gnostic atheist who believes they can prove the non-existence of god. I am meeting more and more formerly religious people who take the stance of agnostic atheist "I believe there is something that made all this, but I don't know what it is".

Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist

The common usage of agnosticism is still a form of atheism, since agnostics are without belief.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-12 07:27:43

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.
It makes no claims.
It is correct that one must positively prove something and cannot prove an inexistence.
My point is that science and religion are different discussions.
They are not mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Darwin. It doesn't disprove god or even a creator.

ninjins

2009-12-12 07:36:28

I guess I was wrong. I was always told (never bothered to look it up, shows how much I care about it anyway) that atheists were those who did not believe in god and pretty much doubted the existence of god. And agnostics were those who pretty much didn't think about religion whatsoever.

I'm one of those people who don't doubt something of a higher being, but seeing is believing and really doesn't care to look into it one bit. What would you call that?

Edge

2009-12-12 08:48:09

TiGGy wrote:I guess I was wrong. I was always told (never bothered to look it up, shows how much I care about it anyway) that atheists were those who did not believe in god and pretty much doubted the existence of god. And agnostics were those who pretty much didn't think about religion whatsoever.

I'm one of those people who don't doubt something of a higher being, but seeing is believing and really doesn't care to look into it one bit. What would you call that?

A tiggy ofc.

Blasphemy

2009-12-12 09:44:51

i get all my religious info from the media, couldn't find the right clip but anyway.

Link

Dr. Lilian Thurman: Donnie, an atheist is someone who denies altogether the existence of God. You're an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

Paradox

2009-12-12 10:02:24

Circular argument is getting dizzy.

Let me sum it up

Fact: You cant prove he does exist

Fact: You cant prove he doesnt exist

End of story

No go play some goddamned video games and quiti arguing about shit you cant ever prove.

Cynips

2009-12-12 10:35:26

Paradox wrote:Circular argument is getting dizzy.

Let me sum it up

Fact: You cant prove he does exist

Fact: You cant prove he doesnt exist

End of story

No go play some goddamned video games and quiti arguing about shit you cant ever prove.

You could say exactly the same thing about The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or evolution, for that matter.

Point is, just because neither the existence nor non-existence of god can be proved, it doesn't make both hypotheses equally probable.

There's a large body of evidence in favor of the non-existence hypothesis. In fact, I'd say it's so huge that we can end the discussion. There simply is no god. Anything else is clinging at (virtually) non-existent straws.

BuckyKatt

2009-12-12 12:15:32

The Argumentalizer wrote: I also might challenge your claim that human's are predisposed to believe in the supernatural across the board and your claim Atheists are a large group and growing.

Challenge all you like but I have research on my side to show that we are indeed predisposed to believe in the supernatural.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident

As for the growth, the American Religious Identification Survey shows that the percentage of those who answered "No Religion" in 1990 was 8.2%. In 2008 it was 15%. That growth came at the expense of all other religions. Those claiming no religion are now only out numbered by Catholics and Baptists.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2 ... ARIS_N.htm

The Argumentalizer wrote: Quantum physics has uncovered behaviors and actions completely unexplained by current scientific methods.
Ask the physicists. There is some truly spooky things going on we can't explain.
There is an entire world of sub-atomic particles and string theory and such that is unexplored.

This is the weakest argument made by the religious; that because science hasn't currently explained these things is proof that a divine force must be behind them. It simple shows that science has not advanced enough to explain them.

The Argumentalizer wrote: Is Atheism the force that built the modern west?

No. But I do not believe the credit for that goes to religion or God either. Necessity is the mother of invention.

The Argumentalizer wrote: Does Atheism lead to better society and more perfect human's?

Any philosophy that treats reason as man's primary tool for gaining knowledge is likely to lead to a better society. The real question here is, do you think I answered yours?

The Argumentalizer wrote: Does Science answer every human need?

No, science gets the realm of facts. Philosophy gets the realm of values.

The Argumentalizer wrote: What about the trail of millions dead at the hand of Atheists?
It dwarfs the conflict of religions.

It isn't atheism that lead the Soviets, North Koreans, etc into their actions. Yes, they were atheists, but their actions were compelled by their other beliefs (political, ethical, etc). On the other hand, most of the dead at the hands of religious wars, crusades, jihads, and all manner of other lunacy are a direct result of religious beliefs.

The Argumentalizer wrote: Almost half of scientists claim to be religious.
I suppose that is a contradiction?

It is about 40% but as you go up the intellect scale the percentage of atheists raises considerably. Further consider that not all science leads to the exploration of thought that would lead one to the rational conclusion of God's nonexistence. Your average polymer chemist concerns themselves with making a better plastic. So no, it is not a contradiction.

The Argumentalizer wrote: Religion FILLS a need.

In so much that religion is a subset of philosophy it does fill a need. Of course that need could just as easily be filled by a philosophy that was not requisite on the belief in the supernatural.

The Argumentalizer wrote: It is correct that one ... cannot prove an inexistence.

Good God you are dense. And wrong. Again.

Paradox

2009-12-12 19:12:12

Cynips wrote:
There's a large body of evidence in favor of the non-existence hypothesis. In fact, I'd say it's so huge that we can end the discussion. There simply is no god. Anything else is clinging at (virtually) non-existent straws.

There is also a large body of evidence that suggests that there is the existence of a higher being and many biblical stories explain some things that science has not been able to account for. Pretty much, however, most everything that both sides have put forth is nothing more than conjecture.

So my point as before is still valid. No one can prove shit. We MAY find out IF and when there is actually an end coming that is predicted in the book of Revelations.

That is the whole point of faith. You choose to believe or you choose not to. Again, if you do believe in what the bible says, that is how God wants it.

Cynips

2009-12-12 19:58:33

Paradox wrote:There is also a large body of evidence that suggests that there is the existence of a higher being and many biblical stories explain some things that science has not been able to account for.

No there is no evidence in favor of god's existence. And there is no logic to providing stories as evidence. You have to have at least some sort of explanatory power.

Paradox wrote:That is the whole point of faith. You choose to believe or you choose not to.

On the contrary, you believe or you do not. There is no choosing to it.

CellarDweller

2009-12-12 20:34:25

i always find this topic aggravating.

non-believers:

1. there is no burden to disprove the existence of God. why bother with this endeavor? to what purpose? the only reason i can see is to support your non-belief. to be able to say, "i am correct!". otherwise, the reason would be to discredit believers, humiliate believers, label believers as ignorant and/or stupid. in epicurean terms, that might be malevolent.

2. ok, there is no God. who do you blame for evil (pain, suffering, catastrophe, etc)? yourself? but isnt man essentially good? must be those believers creating evil. is that how it works? belief is the source of greed, pride, hate, etc? if so, where is the personal responsibilty for non-believers?

believers:

1. there is no burden to prove the existence of God. that is the basis of faith. you have faith, or you dont. faith is not in and of itself a question of right or wrong. faith is not blind as evidenced by free will. its a continual path of choice.

Paradox

2009-12-12 20:56:25

Of course there is a choice. People choose to believe what they want to every day. To say there is no choice is to imply that humans have no brain with which to think and make decisons on and are nothing more than preprogrammed automatons. I CHOOSE to believe different.

I also choose to agree with Cellar, conversations on this topic just ending up being an endless loop of everyone trying to prove what they think is correct and just ends up in raging arguements that get stupider by the minute.

Pernicious

2009-12-12 21:41:49

Its only an endless loop because the beleivers tend to ignore wat they dont like, hitler being religious for example...that was a big one....ignored.

And lol paradox, the book of revelations

Failed prophecies anyone?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl10.htm

So many fails.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-12 21:49:33

Hitler was religious!??! What religious doctrine teaches genocide?
That is just plain loopy.

None of my questions were answered, despite your claim they were, so this stuff about ignoring is nonsense.

Uncle Rico

2009-12-12 21:57:20

The Argumentalizer wrote:What religious doctrine teaches genocide?

Ever read the Old Testament?

sisterFISTER

2009-12-12 22:02:45

Uncle Rico wrote:
The Argumentalizer wrote:What religious doctrine teaches genocide?
Ever read the Old Testament?

oh snap.

Link

BuckyKatt

2009-12-13 00:39:16

The Argumentalizer wrote:None of my questions were answered, despite your claim they were, so this stuff about ignoring is nonsense.

Or maybe you are just to blinded by your own beliefs, to dense, or simply not intelligent enough to see they were.

As for Hitler... here are some choice quotes from the man himself:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

But in truth the question is still out and will likely remain unanswered about what Hitler's actual religious beliefs were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... us_beliefs

Pernicious

2009-12-13 01:10:36

Well i dont think he was paricularly attached to his religion, but he did beleive in god in the same way most do, and used it as a form of influence, which is, as most ppl would put it, evil.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 01:29:45

The Old Testament is the Jewish Book. Christians follow the New Testament.
There is no religion that teaches Genocide.
Hitler was doing God's work.

Wow, one can find a few propaganda statements talking about God, as if that proves anything.
We are talking about Hitler here. You would quote the word of that demonic murderer!?!!?

Its just a big joke.
Christianity does not teach Genocide. To even hint so is an insult to millions.

What i think is is that many "Atheists" are really just ignorant.
Ignorant of religion and its value.
Ignorant to the true history of Communism and its Atheist based Genocide.
Reactionary to the point of ridiculous regarding clashes of civilizations, history...
A tendency to believe dropping a few scientists names makes them scientific.
A complete evasion of North Korea, Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, China.
A bogus argument that somehow Atheism is a better way, with nothing to back it up.
A bogus argument that somehow atheism is some kind of POSITIVE value.
A false argument that Science and belief are mutually exclusive.
A false argument that Science somehow disproves belief.
That is what i think, whether you like it or not.
Its not as if these arguments of Atheism are new or any stronger than before.

The basis for our Constitution does not come from Atheism.
The basis for Western Principles do not come from atheism.
Our code of Justice, Freedom, Individual rights...was not born from Atheism.
Atheists are NOT tolerant open minded people.

BuckyKatt: "Or maybe you are just to blinded by your own beliefs, to dense, or simply not intelligent enough to see they were."

Thats so sweet! That means i'm out of this discussion.

Cynips

2009-12-13 01:44:32

The Argumentalizer wrote:The Old Testament is the Jewish Book. Christians follow the New Testament.

Talk about cherry picking. The Old Testament is part of the christian bible. Nowhere in the bible does it say that christians can disregard the old part.

The basis for our Constitution does not come from Atheism.
The basis for Western Principles do not come from atheism.
Our code of Justice, Freedom, Individual rights...was not born from Atheism.

One thing's certain, none of those come from the Bible.

Thats so sweet! That means i'm out of this discussion.

Why were you in it in the first place when your kind was explicitly asked to stay out?

BuckyKatt

2009-12-13 02:18:28

Cynips wrote:
The Argumentalizer wrote:The basis for our Constitution does not come from Atheism.
The basis for Western Principles do not come from atheism.
Our code of Justice, Freedom, Individual rights...was not born from Atheism.
One thing's certain, none of those come from the Bible.

No, in fact most of that comes from John Locke and his "Two Treatises of Government."

Va|iums

2009-12-13 02:30:56

The Argumentalizer wrote: The basis for Western Principles do not come from atheism.

Thats so sweet! That means i'm out of this discussion.

How can you quantify Atheims impact on "Western" principles? The basis for western principles comes from a hodgepodge from everything from Irish to Egyption values and everything inbetween. The government in which we style ourselves so much after, Rome, never had Christian influence until its waning days, with the exception of Constantine the Great who briefly revatilized the Roman empire in its latter days with Christianity as Rome's informal state religion, but had little to do with religion then his tremendous leadership abilities. Greek and Roman values in which "Western" values have been founded on had very little to do with Christianity, or for that matter strong religious basis at all....In Sparta, Macedonia, Greece and Rome in the heights of their power always had a pagan dominated society, with various cults, superstitions and ceremonies that ebbed and flowed in popularity over time.

Pernicious

2009-12-13 02:57:45

"Ignorant to the true history of Communism and its Atheist based Genocide."

U keep saying that communism is a result of athiesm, yet its clear that it isnt, and it is also clear that worst of communism wasnt either, wat the fuck are u talking about. Especially since u even admit that hitler used god as propaganda at the very least, which means that alot of the general public at the time were religious, meaning....religion itself was of no threat to hitler, meaning that it was NOT athiest fueled...not in the slitest. If religion is a tool of the organisation itself then how can be thought of as athiest, doesnt make any sense.

I said it b4, religions in communism reflect that of the general populations and their cultures.
Athiest based genocide, sounds rediculous, since wen has their been an communist organisation built on athiesm. They may have utilised it as hitler did religion, but that is very unlikelyand i dont know of any, as they tend to use wat is most prevelant in the general population of their nation. Wateva fuel is available dude.

lead

2009-12-13 03:52:22

wow what a load of shite some of you guys early school leavers

sisterFISTER

2009-12-13 04:08:23

idk if anyone else has pointed this out, but you all realize your all arguing about the existence of god on a half life 2 deathmatch forum right?

most of you guys are older then me so i have to assume that no matter your stance, you've had this same argument on a handful of other forums before, have you ever swayed anyone? at any point has it been worth the effort?

Pernicious

2009-12-13 04:18:25

I dont think anyone here is trying to convince anyone one of anything, just that the dude keeps saying stuff that doesnt make sense, and we feel the need to atleast point out why.

Pernicious

2009-12-13 04:24:44

lead wrote:wow what a load of shite some of you guys early school leavers

Be specific or there was no point posting that at all.
Wat is a load of shit?

I'm not an early school leaver myself but frankly most the shit u learn is either out of date or useless to most ppl.
Maybe history class would have come in handy for this but even then there are documentaries and shit out there with more information and accuracy.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 04:33:19

Pernicious: "U keep saying that communism is a result of athiesm, yet its clear that it isnt, and it is also clear that worst of communism wasnt either, wat the fuck are u talking about."

What i am talking about is the ideology of Communism.
Try reading it!

Marx does away with GOD and replaces it with the state.
Its common frickin knowledge.
Communism is ALL about Godlessness and perfecting mankind.
But go ahead with your fictitious nonsense.

Hitler was religious !?!??!
Atheism has nothing to do with Marxism!??!?
Try reading.
I presume they have books in Australia.

lead

2009-12-13 04:34:20

Pernicious wrote:
lead wrote:wow what a load of shite some of you guys early school leavers
Be specific or there was no point posting that at all.
Wat is a load of shit?

I'm not an early school leaver myself but frankly most the shit u learn is either out of date or useless to most ppl.
Maybe history class would have come in handy for this but even then there are documentaries and shit out there with more information and accuracy.

there was no point in posting a lot of this stuff including some of your posts if you want to know! gg

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 04:36:03

Valiums: "How can you quantify Atheims impact on "Western" principles? The basis for western principles comes from a hodgepodge from everything from Irish to Egyption values and everything inbetween. The government in which we style ourselves so much after, Rome, never had Christian influence until its waning days, with the exception of Constantine the Great who briefly revatilized the Roman empire in its latter days with Christianity as Rome's informal state religion, but had little to do with religion then his tremendous leadership abilities. Greek and Roman values in which "Western" values have been founded on had very little to do with Christianity, or for that matter strong religious basis at all....In Sparta, Macedonia, Greece and Rome in the heights of their power always had a pagan dominated society, with various cults, superstitions and ceremonies that ebbed and flowed in popularity over time."

The topic atheism/theism/maybe even polytheism, not Christianity.
NONE of what you cite above has anything remotely to do with atheism and that was my point.
Duhhh.

Va|iums

2009-12-13 05:14:11

Well im gonna bow out here too, religious vs non religion is a circle jerk. Impala, I was more responding to earlier insinuations that theism has contributed more to mankind then atheism, and my point questions such as those are far from empirically quantifiable. I believe religion has a place and so does non-religion, religion can comfort and subdue masses of peoples into being a humble, relatively obediant populace. Rejecting god can be helpful in the scientific process, evidence of such lies in documented examples of scientists being persecuted for findings in science that conflicted with religious views. In another words both sides have their benefits.

Ko-Tao

2009-12-13 05:25:02

Paradox wrote: There is also a large body of evidence that suggests that there is the existence of a higher being and many biblical stories explain some things that science has not been able to account for. Pretty much, however, most everything that both sides have put forth is nothing more than conjecture.

So my point as before is still valid. No one can prove shit. We MAY find out IF and when there is actually an end coming that is predicted in the book of Revelations...

Many (perhaps most) biblical stories are complete fantasy, and other old world religions are no different. They all have fantastic explanations for things not yet understood by science; unsurprisingly, however, none of the explanations can actually be proven, and its rare that any of these religions have the same explanations for any specific event or phenomena, which is hardly surprising considering the peoples who created the old world religions generally lacked knowledge of or contact with eachother, and accordingly couldnt all meet up and work out all the chronological problems and blatant contradictions before they put them to print.

As for proving shit- the great flood has been scientifically, conclusively proven not to have occurred, yet many christians still insist that it happened. Its this sort of blind adherence to scripture, even when that scripture has been starkly revealed as outright fallacious, that gives birth to such quotes as "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"- quotes that would likely not exist if those believing in a divine creating force simply left it at that instead of convoluting their belief with wild stories, mysterious and arbitrary rulesets, warping of history and insane attempts to answer pressing questions with fantasy instead of fact.

CellarDweller wrote:1. there is no burden to disprove the existence of God. why bother with this endeavor? to what purpose? the only reason i can see is to support your non-belief. to be able to say, "i am correct!". otherwise, the reason would be to discredit believers, humiliate believers, label believers as ignorant and/or stupid. in epicurean terms, that might be malevolent.

The idea isnt to disprove god (which is impossible) its to show the fundamental concept of religion as flawed, and accordingly not a useful instrument in the advancement of humanity and the world. Why do this? Simply, its a rather poor situation to have someone with a purposefully distorted view of reality in positions of political or social power, and until religion is fully seperated from state, (and considered no different than believing in faeries, santa claus or lizard people controlling the world), the risk of such people making important (and potentially disastrous) decisions that affect the rest of us is very real.

CellarDweller wrote:2. ok, there is no God. who do you blame for evil (pain, suffering, catastrophe, etc)? yourself? but isnt man essentially good? must be those believers creating evil. is that how it works? belief is the source of greed, pride, hate, etc? if so, where is the personal responsibilty for non-believers?

There is no good or evil; these are abstract perceptions created to label acts we as a society deem acceptable or unacceptable, labels that have historically proven quite transient when compared across different geographies and eras. As for mans essential being- the living world operates on natural law, and that law is generally advancement (of the self or species) via murder (though of course most people dont apply the murderer label to themselves, or think of themselves as violent, being that as a species we tend to be extremely racially autistic, viewing almost all non-human life as nothing more than resources or part of the scenery). Everything kills something to live, which is neither good nor evil in the classical sense; its simply the food chain at work. Greed, pride, hate etc are all derived from base biological motivation- evolution in action, so to speak- and the pain, suffering, pleasure, joy etc are byproducts of this. Catastrophe may have once been unexplainable, but science has long since gotten to the root of natural disasters; manmade disasters, of course are exactly that.

None of the above requires or benefits from divine origin or explanation.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 05:44:52

"There is no good or evil"

This is called random nihilistic nonsense.
Complete BULLSHIT.

Whenever anyone says something like this, i automatically think...Modern philosophical manure.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 05:48:09

Valiums: "theism has contributed more to mankind then atheism"

Of course you're BOWING out. Every example you gave had some theistic beliefs, not atheist.

You still can't point to any great accomplishments of Atheism.
Its just a FACT.

KoTao: "None of the above requires or benefits from divine origin or explanation."

None of it requires Atheism either!
Don't pretend religion is just a framework for Good vs Evil, because its more than that.

Pernicious

2009-12-13 06:01:19

Yes edge, its all pointless. You think we dont know that?
We are just amusing ourselves, or atleast i am.

Pernicious

2009-12-13 06:16:55

I dont think u got wat i was trying to say about evil, i never said there was no good and no evil, obviously there is a definition for the word evil in the dictionary, i even use it myself sometimes.
My point was that a god, with all the understanding of the universe could not possibly have some simplistic view of good and evil wen he knows the history, situation, and reasoning behind every consciousness in existence. There is a reason for everything and those ppl that u consider to be evil became that way for a reason. You would be a much different person if u had grown up in a different situation, hell u might even be athiest lawl.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Valiums: "theism has contributed more to mankind then atheism"

Of course you're BOWING out. Every example you gave had some theistic beliefs, not atheist.

You still can't point to any great accomplishments of Atheism.
Its just a FACT.

KoTao: "None of the above requires or benefits from divine origin or explanation."

None of it requires Atheism either!
Don't pretend religion is just a framework for Good vs Evil, because its more than that.

There is no reason for religion is his point, and knowing that religion was designed for another purpose is just more proof that it is a fantacy, not that proof is needed.

Pernicious

2009-12-13 06:43:04

The Argumentalizer wrote:Pernicious: "U keep saying that communism is a result of athiesm, yet its clear that it isnt, and it is also clear that worst of communism wasnt either, wat the fuck are u talking about."

What i am talking about is the ideology of Communism.
Try reading it!

Marx does away with GOD and replaces it with the state.
Its common frickin knowledge.
Communism is ALL about Godlessness and perfecting mankind.
But go ahead with your fictitious nonsense.

Hitler was religious !?!??!
Atheism has nothing to do with Marxism!??!?
Try reading.
I presume they have books in Australia.

I have said enough about hitler and religion, no need to repeat myself. But the fact that he linked jews to marxism as a way to create hatred obviously means that those attrocities are a result of religion and not athiesm.

As for marxism, i am not sure how u think that relates directly to hitler and all communist parties ever to have existed, even if it does they all have their own takes. The world is much too complicated to just say that they all have marxist values so surely they must be without religion. I find that u seem to want to simplify everthing. This NEED leads to short sitedness.
To say that communism is godless only proves that i would not be the only one who doesnt read. Nazi's being a good example.

Marxism and religion:
Classical Marxism did not pose the suppression of religion as a necessary precondition of social emancipation (the remarks of the young Marx could be read thus: in order to overcome illusions, it is necessary first to put an end to the ‘condition that requires illusions’). In any case - as with the State, one might say - the point is not abolishing religion, but creating the conditions for its extinction. It is not a question of prohibiting ‘the opium of the people’, and still less of repressing its addicts. It is only about putting an end to the privileged relationships that those who trade in it maintain with the powers that be, in order to reduce its grip on minds.

I can see why religious ppl would dislike it, its a threat to them.
Also, nazi's were anti-marxism.

Ko-Tao

2009-12-13 06:50:03

The Argumentalizer wrote:"There is no good or evil"

This is called random nihilistic nonsense.
Complete BULLSHIT.

Whenever anyone says something like this, i automatically think...Modern philosophical manure.

Fine arguement youve presented there!

CellarDweller

2009-12-13 07:57:27

Ko-Tao wrote:
CellarDweller wrote:1. there is no burden to disprove the existence of God. why bother with this endeavor? to what purpose? the only reason i can see is to support your non-belief. to be able to say, "i am correct!". otherwise, the reason would be to discredit believers, humiliate believers, label believers as ignorant and/or stupid. in epicurean terms, that might be malevolent.
The idea isnt to disprove god (which is impossible) its to show the fundamental concept of religion as flawed, and accordingly not a useful instrument in the advancement of humanity and the world. Why do this? Simply, its a rather poor situation to have someone with a purposefully distorted view of reality in positions of political or social power, and until religion is fully seperated from state, (and considered no different than believing in faeries, santa claus or lizard people controlling the world), the risk of such people making important (and potentially disastrous) decisions that affect the rest of us is very real.

flashbacks to the good old irc days and debates with you and voxtex. kinda miss that.

anyways, the stated purpose of the thread is to disprove the existence of God.

belief is no more flawed than non-belief. the common denominator is man. i just cant fathom how a story of salvation is dangerous, how atonement and the golden rule somehow impede the advancement of humanity.

i find the belief in eugenics and social darwinism far more dangerous than believing in noahs ark. thankfully, those ideas have pretty much faded away.

do you have some examples of the establishment clause being violated?

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 10:16:38

Ko-Tao wrote:
The Argumentalizer wrote:"There is no good or evil"

This is called random nihilistic nonsense.
Complete BULLSHIT.

Whenever anyone says something like this, i automatically think...Modern philosophical manure.
Fine argument youve presented there!

There is no need to argue whether Evil exists. When you experience it, you'll know it.
And you'll go, "Gee, was i an egghead!"
Anyone who says Evil doesn't exist has never experienced it.
To say it is JUST a concept is like saying Nazi Death Camps are just a concept, or Stalin was just an idea, or Pol Pot was just misguided.
And to say there is no GOOD is just complete nihilism. There is plenty, if you could recognize it.
Just concepts of what is acceptable to a society my ass.
There are universal concepts and they are REAL.

Do you believe JUSTICE exists? How about Beauty? Freedom?
God?

They exist universally.
Atheism offers nothing.
Atheism did not hand down knowledge through the Dark Ages.
Atheism did not sponsor expeditions of the New World or send pilgrims to Plymouth Rock.
Atheists did not build Rome.
Atheists did not write the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, The Constitution.

It is WITHOUT belief in God and that is ALL it is.
It does not fulfill a need that human beings have.
It does not offer anything higher than US.
I makes sense that someone who says Good and Evil don't exist also doesn't understand the value that religion fills for many, and would post a CARTOON to insult them.

Ko-Tao

2009-12-13 11:30:36

CellarDweller wrote:flashbacks to the good old irc days and debates with you and voxtex. kinda miss that.

anyways, the stated purpose of the thread is to disprove the existence of God.

belief is no more flawed than non-belief. the common denominator is man. i just cant fathom how a story of salvation is dangerous, how atonement and the golden rule somehow impede the advancement of humanity.

i find the belief in eugenics and social darwinism far more dangerous than believing in noahs ark. thankfully, those ideas have pretty much faded away.

do you have some examples of the establishment clause being violated?

Heh, just reread the OP and noticed the part about disbelieving god. Oh well. Impossible task, but the resulting debate has been interesting enough nonetheless.

I would say that, in the absense of fact to prove or disprove something, passive absence of belief (and a willingness to continue to search for conclusive evidence or answers) is the only honest state of mind. Actively believing or disbelieving without proof for either could each be considered equally ignorant. And while i agree that a story of salvation, rules or whatever else is harmless unto itself, it ceases to be so when people start taking it literally and want to forcibly work parts of the story wholesale into the fabric of society.

The Argumentalizer wrote:-snip-

Your repeated rants about the evils of various dictatorships and how atheism doesnt fulfill spiritual needs etc are completely unrelated to what youre quoting, or to the current dicussion at hand.

Also, stating that abstract concepts exist universally, then claiming proof of this isnt required, has to be one of the worst non-trolling attempts to present or support an arguement ive seen in a long time.

Pernicious

2009-12-13 13:02:22

Yea im not sure how to respond to this, i allready explained wat i meant about good and evil, and the perception of. Yet he talks as if he didnt read my post at all.

Obviously there are ppl in this world who are as the definition describes "evil", but to assume a god would react to such things with blind emotion is small minded. There is a story behind every evil act, a reason, and every person on this planet has the capacity for both good and evil. A person, not bothered by his surroundings will grow up to live a normal western life and be considered a good bloke by his peers/freinds/family/etc, but take the same person and give him in a more desperate life/situation or put him in hitlers regime at young age and most likely he will become evil.

So, most anyone could be considered evil since there is that potential in all of us.
So, how does a god judge evil?, wen 2 ppl of the same disposition are only different on the count of their situation.

Paradox

2009-12-13 20:27:04

Ko-Tao wrote: Many (perhaps most) biblical stories are complete fantasy, and other old world religions are no different. They all have fantastic explanations for things not yet understood by science; unsurprisingly, however, none of the explanations can actually be proven, and its rare that any of these religions have the same explanations for any specific event or phenomena, which is hardly surprising considering the peoples who created the old world religions generally lacked knowledge of or contact with eachother, and accordingly couldnt all meet up and work out all the chronological problems and blatant contradictions before they put them to print.

As for proving shit- the great flood has been scientifically, conclusively proven not to have occurred, yet many christians still insist that it happened. Its this sort of blind adherence to scripture, even when that scripture has been starkly revealed as outright fallacious, that gives birth to such quotes as "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"- quotes that would likely not exist if those believing in a divine creating force simply left it at that instead of convoluting their belief with wild stories, mysterious and arbitrary rulesets, warping of history and insane attempts to answer pressing questions with fantasy instead of fact.

Typical response from a anthiest/agnostic.
So the bible is nothing more than a collection of fantasy tales? Funny, many people think its a written history of what happened back then written down by the people that lived then. So I suppose some people can say that our history books are complete fantasy. Can you prove the holocaust happened? Lots of people insist that happeneed and lots say it didnt. Who is correct?

REJECTED

2009-12-13 20:45:06

Paradox wrote:
Ko-Tao wrote: Many (perhaps most) biblical stories are complete fantasy, and other old world religions are no different. They all have fantastic explanations for things not yet understood by science; unsurprisingly, however, none of the explanations can actually be proven, and its rare that any of these religions have the same explanations for any specific event or phenomena, which is hardly surprising considering the peoples who created the old world religions generally lacked knowledge of or contact with eachother, and accordingly couldnt all meet up and work out all the chronological problems and blatant contradictions before they put them to print.

As for proving shit- the great flood has been scientifically, conclusively proven not to have occurred, yet many christians still insist that it happened. Its this sort of blind adherence to scripture, even when that scripture has been starkly revealed as outright fallacious, that gives birth to such quotes as "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"- quotes that would likely not exist if those believing in a divine creating force simply left it at that instead of convoluting their belief with wild stories, mysterious and arbitrary rulesets, warping of history and insane attempts to answer pressing questions with fantasy instead of fact.

Typical response from a anthiest/agnostic.
So the bible is nothing more than a collection of fantasy tales? Funny, many people think its a written history of what happened back then written down by the people that lived then. So I suppose some people can say that our history books are complete fantasy. Can you prove the holocaust happened? Lots of people insist that happeneed and lots say it didnt. Who is correct?

You can ask people living today, such as my Grandfather, whether the holocaust happened or not. There are countless pictures of concentration camps and of all the genocide that took place, it's hardly arguable.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

You don't believe in the stories of Zeus and Thor do you? They're not any different from the Abrahamic God that the majority of people hold so much faith in.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-13 21:54:29

Location: Australia
"Yea im not sure how to respond to this, i allready explained wat i meant about good and evil, and the perception of. Yet he talks as if he didnt read my post at all."

I was obviously responding to Ko Tao, so take a deep breath Aussie.

Mr. Hideous avatar: "Obviously there are ppl in this world who are as the definition describes "evil", but to assume a god would react to such things with blind emotion is small minded."

Who is assuming GOD reacts to anything?
Who is assuming GOD is a big bearded man pulling puppet strings?!?

provost

2009-12-13 22:20:41

I stopped believing after meeting one of God's personnal representant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNb3xJFzkc

(credits goes to joule for the find)

Pernicious

2009-12-13 22:22:11

I took from your quote that u were talking about me, and then ur continued talk about good and evil seemed to be more about wat i said then anyone else.

"Who is assuming GOD reacts to anything?
Who is assuming GOD is a big bearded man pulling puppet strings?!?"

Not me, my whole point is that it is unwise to assume. Hence the small mindedness of religion, the religions u are defending.

"You know what they say about the word assume, it makes and ASS out of U, and on occasion, ME."

ASS-U-ME

Constipator

2009-12-13 22:30:33

badinfluence wrote: I only want the atheists in this thread, so if you believe in God. Please do not comment at all.

You guys are idiots

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-14 00:08:15

Directed at Manson face: "Not me, my whole point is that it is unwise to assume. Hence the small mindedness of religion, the religions u are defending."

Funny, you don't represent open minded atheists very well.
As i have said more than once, Atheism is a perfectly fine stance for one to hold.
It is not more than lack of belief.
And no one has to defend their religion to you.
Its in the Constitution and for a reason, got it?

sisterFISTER

2009-12-14 00:58:50

The Argumentalizer wrote:
Link

Paradox

2009-12-14 01:20:13

Well since no one that could have been living during the time of Jesus Christ is still alive, we cant ask them.

My point is, you cant prove he exists, you cant disprove he exists.

People will believe in whatever "proof" that fits whatever side they want to believe. People also fabricate proof or interpret what other people call proof to fit their own system of beliefs. In the end its all a bunch of bullshit.

No one will ever know for sure unless there is an actual second coming. Until that happens, if it ever happens, there is no proof either way. Conversations like this are just fucking stupid. How about everyone just let everyone else believe whatever the fuck they want to believe and let it go already. If you have nothing better to do than to get your entertainment arguing about some shit you cant prove either way, then you seriously have to get a life. This convo has taken enough time out of mine, Im done with it.

GG thanks for playing

Pernicious

2009-12-14 03:31:39

There are plenty of athiests against religion in general.
I am one of those. In that way i do represent them.

And yes, thank you for pointing out my avatar, i do realise it is anti-christ'ish but it also suits the theme of my avatar. Now that u point it out it really does suit me perfectly eh.
I do realise u are not against athiesm but wen u make claims like nazi's were athiest driven i just feel the need to sniff out the bullshit.

sisterFISTER

2009-12-14 03:37:19

Pernicious wrote:There are plenty of athiests against religion in general.
I am one of those. In that way i do represent them.

And yes, thank you for pointing out my avatar, i do realise it is anti-christ'ish but it also suits the theme of my avatar. Now that u point it out it really does suit me perfectly eh.
I do realise u are not against athiesm but wen u make claims like nazi's were athiest driven i just feel the need to sniff out the bullshit.

Pedophilia is religiously driven?

provost

2009-12-14 04:09:29

sisterFISTER wrote:Pedophilia is religiously driven?

*points at the pedophile priests cliché*

Ko-Tao

2009-12-14 04:11:13

Paradox wrote:How about everyone just let everyone else believe whatever the fuck they want to believe and let it go already.

Heh, if only the vast majority of religious people did exactly this!

Unfortunately, many/most seem to feel a burning need to have some of their more fantastic or insane beliefs forced upon everyone, as indicated by the constant attempts to work various religious ideals into the law, or the somewhat less common (in modern 1st world countries, at least) attempts to enforce their ideals directly via acts of violence.

I should mention- regarding those who keep their religious beliefs confined to their own lives, i have no problem at all.

Pernicious

2009-12-14 04:36:22

Ko-Tao wrote:Unfortunately, many/most seem to feel a burning need to have some of their more fantastic or insane beliefs forced upon everyone, as indicated by the constant attempts to work various religious ideals into the law, or the somewhat less common (in modern 1st world countries, at least) attempts to enforce their ideals directly via acts of violence.

U mean like muslims in the UK, there was a thread linking to a video on these very forums i do believe. Was a brilliant example of this.

Book

2009-12-14 05:21:12

Wait.. How did this thread get so long withought the ewr girls?!

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-14 06:52:06

Pernicious: "There are plenty of athiests against religion in general.
I am one of those. In that way i do represent them."

Thanks. That is what i said, ie, i know that already.
Also, i notice that none of my points are really disputed.

Your avatar is just plain UGLY, as in hideous, unattractive, sick... which is i guess your general schtick.

Sacrifist

2009-12-14 06:58:24

Paradox wrote:
Ko-Tao wrote: Many (perhaps most) biblical stories are complete fantasy, and other old world religions are no different. They all have fantastic explanations for things not yet understood by science; unsurprisingly, however, none of the explanations can actually be proven, and its rare that any of these religions have the same explanations for any specific event or phenomena, which is hardly surprising considering the peoples who created the old world religions generally lacked knowledge of or contact with eachother, and accordingly couldnt all meet up and work out all the chronological problems and blatant contradictions before they put them to print.

As for proving shit- the great flood has been scientifically, conclusively proven not to have occurred, yet many christians still insist that it happened. Its this sort of blind adherence to scripture, even when that scripture has been starkly revealed as outright fallacious, that gives birth to such quotes as "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"- quotes that would likely not exist if those believing in a divine creating force simply left it at that instead of convoluting their belief with wild stories, mysterious and arbitrary rulesets, warping of history and insane attempts to answer pressing questions with fantasy instead of fact.

Typical response from a anthiest/agnostic.
So the bible is nothing more than a collection of fantasy tales? Funny, many people think its a written history of what happened back then written down by the people that lived then. So I suppose some people can say that our history books are complete fantasy. Can you prove the holocaust happened? Lots of people insist that happeneed and lots say it didnt. Who is correct?

Saying the bible is written history is like saying Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is written history.

Va|iums

2009-12-14 07:09:22

Sacrifist wrote:
Paradox wrote:
Ko-Tao wrote: Many (perhaps most) biblical stories are complete fantasy, and other old world religions are no different. They all have fantastic explanations for things not yet understood by science; unsurprisingly, however, none of the explanations can actually be proven, and its rare that any of these religions have the same explanations for any specific event or phenomena, which is hardly surprising considering the peoples who created the old world religions generally lacked knowledge of or contact with eachother, and accordingly couldnt all meet up and work out all the chronological problems and blatant contradictions before they put them to print.

As for proving shit- the great flood has been scientifically, conclusively proven not to have occurred, yet many christians still insist that it happened. Its this sort of blind adherence to scripture, even when that scripture has been starkly revealed as outright fallacious, that gives birth to such quotes as "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"- quotes that would likely not exist if those believing in a divine creating force simply left it at that instead of convoluting their belief with wild stories, mysterious and arbitrary rulesets, warping of history and insane attempts to answer pressing questions with fantasy instead of fact.

Typical response from a anthiest/agnostic.
So the bible is nothing more than a collection of fantasy tales? Funny, many people think its a written history of what happened back then written down by the people that lived then. So I suppose some people can say that our history books are complete fantasy. Can you prove the holocaust happened? Lots of people insist that happeneed and lots say it didnt. Who is correct?
Saying the bible is written history is like saying Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is written history.

but....I thought...Santa Clause and Rudolph were real.....

thanks for ruining my Christmas wow

Ko-Tao

2009-12-14 09:28:12

Va|iums wrote:but....I thought...Santa Clause and Rudolph were real..... thanks for ruining my Christmas wow

sisterFISTER

2009-12-14 14:10:38

Book wrote:Wait.. How did this thread get so long withought the ewr girls?!

wasnt most of this thread arguing poorbilly's existence?

Walking Target

2009-12-15 03:53:57

sisterFISTER wrote:
Book wrote:Wait.. How did this thread get so long withought the ewr girls?!
wasnt most of this thread arguing poorbilly's existence?

Yes, and most of us have concluded that there is no poorbilly.

Shoobie

2009-12-15 05:16:08

Walking Target wrote:
sisterFISTER wrote:
Book wrote:Wait.. How did this thread get so long withought the ewr girls?!
wasnt most of this thread arguing poorbilly's existence?
Yes, and most of us have concluded that there is no poorbilly.

Blasphemy (no, not u blas)! Turn or get Pwned!

Blasphemy

2009-12-15 07:42:24

Shoobie wrote:
Walking Target wrote:
sisterFISTER wrote: wasnt most of this thread arguing poorbilly's existence?
Yes, and most of us have concluded that there is no poorbilly.
Blasphemy (no, not u blas)! Turn or get Pwned!

sup?

s0iz

2009-12-16 02:01:10

Nobody is forcing nobody, the conflict between jews and Muslims is due to a territory claim. And shall I remember you about the Church forcing Native Americans to go into Christian-ism, and the Crusaders?

And shall I remember about Christians burning Aztec/Incas/Mayas/China's books because their symbol-writing was Satanic?

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-19 09:52:38

"And shall I remember about Christians burning Aztec/Incas/Mayas/China's books because their symbol-writing was Satanic?"

I learned that Cortez was joined by many other Indian tribes AGAINST the barbaric Aztec, who would kidnap their people and cut their hearts out in ritual sacrifices.
Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas didn't HAVE books.
You must have read another history book.

As for the Crusades, would you like to comment on the Persian conquest and enslaving of the Greeks before Christ was even born!??!

All i ever seem to read and here from folks is the DUMBED down sillyass version of very complex world building history.

Va|iums

2009-12-19 12:45:09

The Argumentalizer wrote: Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas didn't HAVE books.
read and here from folks is the DUMBED down sillyass version of very complex world building history.

Cmon dude...if you haven't even gone deep enough in history to learn even the Aztecs had codefied books (one of the most famous examples of an ancient civilization having codefied text) I think you just need to stop now....Who is really the one propagating dumbed down versions of history here? I didnt want to go back into this thread but you're just being so ignorant I need to respond.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 00:01:30

Ever heard of a PRINTING PRESS?

Books are BOOKS!
Do you understand what definitions mean?
Do you understand that language and ideas have meaning and validity?
Every time i see a Valiums post, i see some definition slaughtered, a meaning perverted, or word mangled.
Maybe you can define what "Codified books" MEANS!?!?
Is this a new Valiums term, where codified is crammed to BOOK whereby codified books exist!??!
Since LAW is codified INTO books, The Aztecs had Law Books?

Have a nice day, where everything could be anything.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 00:07:46

A codified book is a book that is written into law and then made into a book?!??!

Oh, you mean they had a few laws scratched unto parchment or leather that limited Human Sacrifices to alternate Tuesdays.

Va|iums

2009-12-20 01:32:29

The Argumentalizer wrote:Ever heard of a PRINTING PRESS?

Books are BOOKS!
Do you understand what definitions mean?
Do you understand that language and ideas have meaning and validity?
Every time i see a Valiums post, i see some definition slaughtered, a meaning perverted, or word mangled.
Maybe you can define what "Codified books" MEANS!?!?
Is this a new Valiums term, where codified is crammed to BOOK whereby codified books exist!??!
Since LAW is codified INTO books, The Aztecs had Law Books?

Have a nice day, where everything could be anything.

.....

courtesy of the Oxford dictionary book

• noun 1 a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers

Printing press has nothing to do with establishing a book as a "book". Since the Odyssey wasnt printed by a printing press until thousands of years later I guess it doesnt count as a book. Seriously old man just give it up, Aztecs had books, Incans had books, and I havent been lectured or read any books on Mayans so I dont know about them but I'd be willing they had them too.

Va|iums

2009-12-20 01:45:01

The Argumentalizer wrote:A codified book is a book that is written into law and then made into a book?!??!

Oh, you mean they had a few laws scratched unto parchment or leather that limited Human Sacrifices to alternate Tuesdays.

You are so ignorant and dumb it is just mindblowing, people like you deserve to just stay in the shitty intellectual and physical hole you live in, I doubt your own children even like you that much. I went into my notes last summer just to remember a keyterm we had to memorize about Aztecs....here is Wikipedia so it doesnt hurt your brain too much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 02:02:53

I said they didn't have BOOKS. Yes or no?!?!

its a very simple proposition, despite your lame attempt to highlight a small portion of my comment down to the DUMB level.
DID THEY HAVE BOOKS OR NOT, smartass?

Those are NOT books, in the sense that defines a BOOK.

The Aztecs were a barbaric backward, violent, pernicious culture and the surrounding tribes FOUGHT and AIDED and ABETTED the Spaniards against the Aztecs.

THAT was my point, despite you Leftist Multi-cultural nonsense.

Also, the notion that the Crusades were a one sided affair defined by violent Christians against innocent tribal culture is BS.
And its a good thing not everyone in history is a Leftist Politically correct multi-cultural dildo.

Va|iums

2009-12-20 02:08:46

The Argumentalizer wrote:I said they didn't have BOOKS. Yes or no?!?!

its a very simple proposition, despite your lame attempt to highlight a small portion of my comment down to the DUMB level.
DID THEY HAVE BOOKS OR NOT, smartass?

Those are NOT books, in the sense that defines a BOOK.

The Aztecs were a barbaric backward, violent, pernicious culture and the surrounding tribes FOUGHT and AIDED and ABETTED the Spaniards against the Aztecs.

THAT was my point, despite you Leftist Multi-cultural nonsense.

From Wikipedia, I'm sorry I can't convince my history professor to come and make an accout to come post in here, I'm sorry I can't legally photocopy the 32 some pages in my books about Aztec writing and I'm sorry I cant remember the name of the history channel show we watched 20 minutes of that showed some Aztec books, Wikipedia will just have to suffice...

"Aztec codices (singular codex) are books written by pre-Columbian and colonial-era Aztecs. These codices provide some of the best primary sources for Aztec culture."

I really cant do anything else besides post another 10 non wikipedia web page links I found in the first 5 pages of google search on Aztec books, I think your just a hopeless case of an idiot. Also for the second time I will answer your question, which is yes; I know Aztecs had books, I know Incans had books, I'm not brushed up on Mayan culture but they probably had books too.
'

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 02:12:58

Great, they had a rudimentary language and made some scrolls!??!?
Who gives a shit.

They were kidnapping and sacrificing human beings by the thousands.
That was my point, smart boy student guy.

I don't give a crap what Wikipedia says. It is a community edited internet encyclopedia.
Anything can end up there.

If you want to read about Cortes and the Aztecs, Victor Davis Hanson and others can add perspective, beyond this NOBLE TRIBAL politically correct nonsense.
As i said, Indians FOUGHT and aided the Spaniards against their mortal enemy, the Aztecs.

badinfluence

2009-12-20 02:13:57

THE PAPER IS DONE AND TURNED IN.

STFU NOW.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 02:16:52

I suppose ancient symbols painted on a cave wall are now BOOKS!?!?

Va|iums

2009-12-20 02:19:27

The Argumentalizer wrote:I suppose ancient symbols painted on a cave wall are now BOOKS!?!?

lol

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

Va|iums

2009-12-20 02:20:13

badinfluence wrote:THE PAPER IS DONE AND TURNED IN.

STFU NOW.

WHAT GRADE DID YOU GET ON YOUR PAPER

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 03:06:21

Well, i guess you prove that Christians didn't burn all the Aztec/Mayan/Inca "books" like someone thinks.

Hard to study ancient scrolls that have been burnt.

Va|iums

2009-12-20 04:11:52

The Argumentalizer wrote:Well, i guess you prove that Christians didn't burn all the Aztec/Mayan/Inca "books" like someone thinks.

Hard to study ancient scrolls that have been burnt.

lol...when did I ever say Christians burned those civilizations books? The trend of burning books and persecuting scientists and philosophers had largely stopped by that age due to the "Enlightenment" movement and its after effects. Most of the Christian persucution was done to their own peoples not other cultures, the height of it during the middle ages.

The Argumentalizer

2009-12-20 04:37:20

"lol...when did I ever say Christians burned those civilizations books."

LOL MY ASS. My post was in reference to Soiz, not you.
You did however, choose to get involved.

My idea was in response to the nonsense notion that Aztecs were a great culture beset upon by evil Spaniards or Christians burning BOOKS, the entire leftist Multi-culturalist approach.

Just because you have a college history course does not mean you have years of reading about culture.
So, you jump right in and grab BOOKS, and then compose an argument that codices are books, all the proving Soiz wrong, which i was respoinding to in the first place.

So< typically, you have some info. You have some data and try to make some pedantic point about crude language and some scrolls, just like your Professor might.
So, WHAT does it mean?
Are we to honor a barbaric violent and hated Aztec Culture because they had symbols and wrote scrolls?

That was my point.
The main point is of dumbing down really important and complex history like the Crusades/Cortes/Aztecs/Imperialism... so forth.
Also the Dumbed down Atheist argument that tosses these concepts around as if they gumdrops.

Va|iums

2009-12-20 05:22:45

The Argumentalizer wrote:"lol...when did I ever say Christians burned those civilizations books."

LOL MY ASS. My post was in reference to Soiz, not you.
You did however, choose to get involved.

My idea was in response to the nonsense notion that Aztecs were a great culture beset upon by evil Spaniards or Christians burning BOOKS, the entire leftist Multi-culturalist approach.

Just because you have a college history course does not mean you have years of reading about culture.
So, you jump right in and grab BOOKS, and then compose an argument that codices are books, all the proving Soiz wrong, which i was respoinding to in the first place.

So< typically, you have some info. You have some data and try to make some pedantic point about crude language and some scrolls, just like your Professor might.
So, WHAT does it mean?
Are we to honor a barbaric violent and hated Aztec Culture because they had symbols and wrote scrolls?

That was my point.
The main point is of dumbing down really important and complex history like the Crusades/Cortes/Aztecs/Imperialism... so forth.
Also the Dumbed down Atheist argument that tosses these concepts around as if they gumdrops.

tldr; the word gumdrop made me hungry tho