As an unbeliever these are the churches i will only visit and sit through services

[Chopper3000]

I cannot believe people are still so brain washed into believing such trash. This is 2000 y/o understanding of why we exist. Surely people are a bit brighter? Fuck it annoys me.

 

[dreschi]

Hmmm... your post leaves me kind of puzzled. It raises several questions from my point of view which is not really an atheist one's but more of a non-believer's.

Allah means God in arabic, so it's not true that i don't believe in Allah, since i believe in God.

Does that mean you believe that the Muslim Allah and the Christian God are identical? I do admit that as a non-believer I don't know that much about religion, but I have heard or read it often that believers of a certain religion think that the Gods of other religions are false Gods.

Or, maybe to emphasize what I mean by that question... do you think that any and all Gods humans believe in or have ever believed in, are all the same? What about the Greek Gods, for example? Did the Greeks just perceive many facets of the one God as different Gods? Yes, that is a serious question, and it is not intended to mock you or anything. I'm just curious.

It's perfectly normal for someone who embraces a certain religion to be interested about and eventually critic towards other religions, I find it less normal for an atheist to be obsessed with something they don't believe in

If you define an atheist as someone who believes there is no God, why would it be any less normal for them to challenge and critic other beliefs? (I don't think every atheist is "obsessed" by the way.)

and to discern about how believers should live their relationship with a deity

Now that would be downright weird. An atheist trying to "spread the word" and convince believers not to believe anymore makes sense. By an atheist cannot, by the very definition of the word, tell believers how they should live their relationship with a deity. If anything, an atheist might want to tell you how you should interact with other people. And I think that this is what this was about. (If you agree with that is another matter of course.)

Have you ever met or talked to an atheist trying to tell you how to live your faith? I can't quite believe that because it seems too absurd to me.

DRESCHI - you are totally right about evolution vs creationism, but you said it yourself: atheists seem to be obsessed with inner-religious matters

Sorry but no, I did not say that. I do believe that there are lots of atheists who are not obsessed with inner-religious matters. I said that there are fanatics on both sides. But I really do not believe that there are more fanatic atheists than fanatic theists.

An atheist pro abortion can fight for their beliefs and move lobbies, politicians, media and public opinion to make abortion an acceptable practice, while those who believe that abortion is equal to killing and it shouldn't be allowed they should not support their own beliefs publicly.

That was not how I understood that. Everyone can support their beliefs publicly. I think the difference is that someone who supports abortion would not force any woman who is against it to do it. But someone who is against abortion would force other women NOT to do it. I guess that is what GodsEmbryo wanted to say.

Many atheist are as radical as radical religious people

I second that. But that is not really a question of theism or atheism. That seems to come naturally with any belief system I'm afraid.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I cannot believe people are still so brain washed into believing such trash. This is 2000 y/o understanding of why we exist. Surely people are a bit brighter? Fuck it annoys me.

So, why we exist, sorry? Could you please explain? How the first hominids ended up over the face of earth? Evolution? From what? A cell with a nucleus? And how did that cell form? Life arising from non-life? Any solid evidence that you could gently share with us? No, you don't have any evidence of how we ended up discussing on this forum, i already suspected it. You call people brain washed and then all you have is a theory. What makes the theory you support less annoying than a belief? A belief that something cannot evolve from nothing and therefore there must be a creator. Couldn't one affirm that you have been brain washed by evolutionists?

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Does that mean you believe that the Muslim Allah and the Christian God are identical? I do admit that as a non-believer I don't know that much about religion, but I have heard or read it often that believers of a certain religion think that the Gods of other religions are false Gods.

Or, maybe to emphasize what I mean by that question... do you think that any and all Gods humans believe in or have ever believed in, are all the same? What about the Greek Gods, for example? Did the Greeks just perceive many facets of the one God as different Gods? Yes, that is a serious question, and it is not intended to mock you or anything. I'm just curious.

It's irrelevant if they are identical. They are Gods and therefore believing in one rather than in the other does not make you atheist. And no mock perceived about the Greek Gods: still those who believe(d) in multiple deities cannot be called atheist either.

If you define an atheist as someone who believes there is no God, why would it be any less normal for them to challenge and critic other beliefs? (I don't think every atheist is "obsessed" by the way.)

One can do what they want. I just find it curious that one is concerned about something that doesn't exist. It's just my personal opinion. God is about faith, not about evidence and you can't disprove faith. It's impossible. One can lose the faith as fast as they found it, but it's an intimate thing which is neither based on brain washing nor on evidence. China will have the largest Christian community in the world by 2030. I said atheist, anti clerical, brain washing communist China. An atheist will never convince a theist that there is no deity. So, again, i don't understand why bothering about something you (generically speaking) don't understand and don't believe it exists.

Now that would be downright weird. An atheist trying to "spread the word" and convince believers not to believe anymore makes sense. By an atheist cannot, by the very definition of the word, tell believers how they should live their relationship with a deity. If anything, an atheist might want to tell you how you should interact with other people. And I think that this is what this was about. (If you agree with that is another matter of course.)

Have you ever met or talked to an atheist trying to tell you how to live your faith? I can't quite believe that because it seems too absurd to me.

There are examples on this same thread. I see such examples on any religious threads where atheists pop in. An atheist stating that all theists are brain washed is a clear attempt to tell you how (not) to live your faith.

Sorry but no, I did not say that. I do believe that there are lots of atheists who are not obsessed with inner-religious matters. I said that there are fanatics on both sides. But I really do not believe that there are more fanatic atheists than fanatic theists.

I've just said that you seem to agree that there are atheists obsessed with God and religion. And yes, fanatics are on both sides. It's simply that a fanatic of nothing makes me giggle more than a fanatic of something. One thing is to be dragged into a discussion over something that you don't believe it exists, another thing is frantically seeking a pretest to start one, in my opinion.

That was not how I understood that. Everyone can support their beliefs publicly. I think the difference is that someone who supports abortion would not force any woman who is against it to do it. But someone who is against abortion would force other women NOT to do it. I guess that is what GodsEmbryo wanted to say.

Forcing against will is something wrong in every aspect of life and living, not only abortion. However, GodsEmbryo said she shouldn't say or demand others can't do it; to me this sounds like she cannot campaign against abortion. I don't see why not, if pro-abortion people can campaign for this practice. Also, don't forget that it's easier to force to abort than to force to not abort. I don't recall of illegal non-abortion cases, while literature is full of illegal abortion cases. I mean, you can't really force people not to kill, if they wanted to, can you? At least let's give anti abortion people the chance to stand for their beliefs, right or wrong.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

I'm afraid Dreschi already made points that I was going to make myself, so I'll try to not repeat too much.

I've never seen so many ignorant statements in just one sentence. Allah means God in arabic, so it's not true that i don't believe in Allah, since i believe in God. There is a deity and then there is religion which is "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." A theist believes in a deity and embraces a certain religion. An atheist does not believe in any deity and therefore does not embrace any religion. It's perfectly normal for someone who embraces a certain religion to be interested about and eventually critic towards other religions, I find it less normal for an atheist to be obsessed with something they don't believe in and to discern about how believers should live their relationship with a deity.

That's a very smart response, I did not see that coming. Although I think you are very well aware of what I meant. You are not a muslim. By definition of your own religion you can't even recognize Allah as a god or believe in Allah. By using a general term like theist you can of course.

But you are also ignoring my entire comment (thank you for calling me ignorant), so I will repeat it here:

Are you saying atheists are not interested in the "big questions" of life? How did it all begin, is there a meaning to life, what will happen when you die, what is out there, is there other life, etc. It would be extremely arrogant to claim only religious have a right to ask those questions and to have a monopoly on the answers. Apart from that we all have our place and responsability in a multicultural and multireligious society. Like Dreschi already pointed out people have a right to point things out they consider flawed or harmfull for the benefit of that society. Do you think we need to shut up when catholic priests abuse children? When muslims slit the throats of journalists? When a bible says women are inferior to men and according to the bible it's ok rape them and stone them to death because of it? Do you really think we need to be silent when religious nutcakes demand anti-gay rights and the right to kill them? The list is endless. And you dare to say we should mind our own business? Yes, we can be moral without god. It only takes not being an idiot to understand that sharing this planet with so many other people is a lot more pleasant when we also share ideas about acceptable behavior. Idiocy and extremism are not amongst those behaviours.

Would you care to comment on that? Why isn't an atheist allowed to wonder and ask questions? And why do atheists not have a right to point these harmfull things out?

Theists seem to be obsessed with inner-religious matters. I don't see in this thread or others much about evolution vs creationism, while i see a lot about how preaching is wrong, personal beliefs should not be shared and stuff like that. As if the atheists were afraid of something they claim they don't believe in.

As an atheist I have no interest in how you have a personal relationship with god. Why should I? And why should I be afraid of something I don't believe in in the first place? Are you afraid of Zeus?

I know GodsEmbryo will take it personal, now, but i must quote the following because in my opinion it is emblematic of atheists obsession towards what they don't believe in:

If a woman is against abortion for example because of a belief, then she has all right to not do it if she was in such a situation, but she shouldn't say or demand others can't do it.

Why is that? An atheist pro abortion can fight for their beliefs and move lobbies, politicians, media and public opinion to make abortion an acceptable practice, while those who believe that abortion is equal to killing and it shouldn't be allowed they should not support their own beliefs publicly. God has spoken, i guess. An atheist one.

It's a fair question, there's no need for me to take it personal. The explanation is very simple and Dreshi said it better then I could:

"Everyone can support their beliefs publicly. I think the difference is that someone who supports abortion would not force any woman who is against it to do it. But someone who is against abortion would force other women NOT to do it. I guess that is what GodsEmbryo wanted to say."

A woman already has the choise not to do it if it conflicts with her religion. Why force it on people who do not share that belief? You obviously don't like me to tell you what you can and cannot do, and you would be right. And you obviously wouldn't like it if for example a muslim would start to dictate what you have to believe, and do and think, and you would be right. But why would it be ok if it's the other way round? I am pro choice, meaning people should have a choice.

Many atheist are as radical as radical religious people: they would just want to wipe religions away from the face of earth as much as radical christians or muslims would want to wipe atheists and infidels away. They are both dangerous, but personally i tend to be more suspicious towards a radical atheist who wants to wipe a non existing God and everything related to it, than a theist who tries to convert an atheist.

I'm going to give you an open and honest answer, and I think you're going to have a field trip with this. But ah well... it's late, I'm very very tired and I don't give a fuck at the moment.

In an earlier post I made a remark about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Ney where Ham answered "I'm a christian, nothing will change my mind" on the question "what if anything could change your mind?". Bill Ney's response was "just one piece of evidence". That's in a nutshell what an atheist is. We do not claim to have answers and are not afraid to say "I don't know". I don't believe in a god because I see no evidence. I am fully aware that this life is it for me and live it with the fullest respect for everything around me. And because I'm aware that I don't know everything I try to have this respect towards ALL religions as well. Im not the one claiming that a certain god is the right one, and that we all should live according to this god's rules. I am the one claiming "we don't know". Wouldn't it be nice if religion did just the same? And recognize that others could be right? Instead of "everybody else is wrong"?

But in all honesty, yes I am becoming more radical. I used to be open minded and respectful but I've seen soooooo many religious shit and idiocy that religion starts to piss me off. I'm not an anti-theist yet, but I'm not really neutral anymore either, and I really am wondering if the world wouldn't be better off without religion. Atheists should be less radical? Well, that's the story of the chicken and the egg (well, because ofscience we know the egg was first, so it's probably not the proper expression): are atheists responding to the crap of religion, or is religion responding to the crap of atheists?...

I'm out.

 

[Rattrap]

I don't want to jump too far onto the bandwagon, but there's one particularly glaring use of faulty logic I need to point out:

So, why we exist, sorry? Could you please explain? How the first hominids ended up over the face of earth? Evolution? From what? A cell with a nucleus? And how did that cell form? Life arising from non-life? Any solid evidence that you could gently share with us?

I'm always surprised in today's age of rapid scientific advancement that people still result to god of gaps arguments. It's a logical fallacy.

What makes the theory you support less annoying than a belief?

Logical and scientific support.

A belief that something cannot evolve from nothing and therefore there must be a creator.

And here we get to the crux of the glaring fallacy. To be fair, it's a very popular one, even with its own name: it's the cosmological argument. Here's what's wrong with your statement:
1) The theory doesn't say 'from nothing'
2) If something cannot come from nothing, where does a creator come from?
3) In what other area of life - any area or topic - is it okay to simply make up an answer when you don't have one? "I don't know, so...God."

Do we have an answer for biogenesis at the moment? No. Does that mean it's at all sound or reasonable to make one up? No.

But in all honesty, yes I am becoming more radical. I used to be open minded and respectful but I've seen soooooo many religious shit and idiocy that religion starts to piss me off. I'm not an anti-theist yet, but I'm not really neutral anymore either, and I really am wondering if the world wouldn't be better off without religion. Atheists should be less radical? Well, that's the story of the chicken and the egg (well, because ofscience we know the egg was first, so it's probably not the proper expression): are atheists responding to the crap of religion, or is religion responding to the crap of atheists?

To the last sentence first: even the briefest of history educations will show the former to be true. A more detailed study of history will show some striking inverse correllations between periods and regions of high religiosity and quality of life/scientific and social advancement/etc.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I don't want to jump too far onto the bandwagon, but there's one particularly glaring use of faulty logic I need to point out:


I'm always surprised in today's age of rapid scientific advancement that people still result to god of gaps arguments. It's a logical fallacy.


Logical and scientific support.


And here we get to the crux of the glaring fallacy. To be fair, it's a very popular one, even with its own name: it's the cosmological argument. Here's what's wrong with your statement:
1) The theory doesn't say 'from nothing'
2) If something cannot come from nothing, where does a creator come from?
3) In what other area of life - any area or topic - is it okay to simply make up an answer when you don't have one? "I don't know, so...God."

Do we have an answer for biogenesis at the moment? No. Does that mean it's at all sound or reasonable to make one up? No.



To the last sentence first: even the briefest of history educations will show the former to be true. A more detailed study of history will show some striking inverse correllations between periods and regions of high religiosity and quality of life/scientific and social advancement/etc.

Which logical and scientific support are you talking about?

"The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea"

George M. Whitesides, "Revolutions In Chemistry: Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides' Address," Chemical and Engineering News, 85: 12-17 (March 26, 2007).

Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that's easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That's very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it's easy to make money in the stock market -- all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it's done.

Stanley Miller quoted in Peter Radetsky, "How Did Life Start?" Discover Magazine (Nov., 1992).

What you call faulty logic is related to a theory. You can say what you want, but coming from a cell with nucleus is just a theory and the fact that there are no links discovered between the cell and what should have been the first hominids, the fact that there is no evidence about the existence of those first hominids and most of all the fact that there is no evidence or scientific explanation on how those cells with nucleus came into existing and started transforming and replicating into more complex organisms, doesn't make that theory any stronger than the theory of creation.
Faith doesn't need logic or scientific support. Those who don't believe in a creator, to the contrary, must explain how is it possible that life exists without a creator and so far they haven't been capable of doing so. I'm not talking about who is right or wrong...maybe we will see in a near or far away future; i am saying that dismissing a creator as illogical and scientifically unsupported while theorizing something which is also illogical and scientifically unsupported is like the pot calling the kettle black. If one, as per your words, is made up, the other one is made up too.

 

[dreschi]

It's irrelevant if they are identical.

Not really. As far as I know, both religions claim that their God is the only one in existence. So either they are identical, or (at least) one of them doesn't exist. No?

Of course, believing in the Christian God doesn't make you an atheist, not even from the viewpoint of a Muslim. But whether you are an atheist or a Christian, from a Muslim point of view, you are a non-believer.

God is about faith, not about evidence and you can't disprove faith.

Depends. If someone has faith that the earth was created 5,000 years ago, that actually can be disproven. That faith that a God exists cannot be disproven, that I will concede.

An atheist stating that all theists are brain washed is a clear attempt to tell you how (not) to live your faith.

An atheist telling you not to believe anymore is not quite the same as an atheist telling you how to live your faith. But that might be nitpicking.

Forcing against will is something wrong in every aspect of life and living, not only abortion. However, GodsEmbryo said she shouldn't say or demand others can't do it; to me this sounds like she cannot campaign against abortion. I don't see why not, if pro-abortion people can campaign for this practice.

Regardless of what you think of abortion, the difference between the two is this: pro choice campaigners do not want to impose anything on pro life campaigners when they want abortion to be legal. But pro life campaigners want to impose their view on everyone when they want abortion to be illegal.

Faith doesn't need logic or scientific support. Those who don't believe in a creator, to the contrary, must explain how is it possible that life exists without a creator

The problem I have with this is that believing there is a creator does not solve the question where everything originated. Because: where does the creator come from? Atheist scientists are trying to find out how life exists without a creator. That, so far, they have not found out, does not prove them wrong. On the other hand, an atheist could demand that someone who believes in a creator explains where the creator came from. The usual answer will be that the creator has always been or that the creator does not exist within the boundaries of time. Well, maybe. Maybe not. To me, belief in such a creator does not make much more sense to me than life having originated from nothing. If you consider the size of the universe, the number of stars and planets, why shouldn't life have originated on one planet or other by some chance occurrence? If you consider the possibility of multiple, maybe countless universes (as some scientists have theorized), it becomes even less unlikely that life could be a product of random chance. On the other hand, even the existence of multiple universes would not necessarily disprove the existence of a creator. It's something that cannot really be discussed in a meaningful way.


An entirely different question is this: suppose there is a creator. That does not necessarily mean that this creator still cares about his creation. Maybe he created the universe 15 billion years ago and then just left it at that. Who knows? The point is that religious people not only believe there is a creator, they also believe that he cares about what we mere humans do or not do. And a lot of them claim to know what exactly he wants us to do or not to do. And given the multitude of different religions and different religious morals, it is not that much of a leap to think that maybe they have all just been invented by humans. With God being invoked to ensure people live by these rules. I think even someone who is religious should at least be able to see that line of reasoning.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

God is about faith, not about evidence and you can't disprove faith.

Faith doesn't need logic or scientific support. Those who don't believe in a creator, to the contrary, must explain how is it possible that life exists without a creator and so far they haven't been capable of doing so

You are abusing the word faith.

Belief is an intellectual property, where faith is a matter of trust. You put your belief in a deity because you hold it to be truth. Faith is reliance on and a surrender to what you hold to be truth. You would be correct to say that nobody can prove, disprove or deny this faith because this trust is a personal experience. However, this faith cannot exist without belief. You cannot put your trust in god if you don't belief in god. It's a dishonest position to hide behind "faith", ignore the part about your belief where claims are made and say "we don't need to backup these claims because... faith".

There's nothing wrong with someone asking if you can back these claims up and not just take your word for it. You are a sceptic towards scientific claims. Fair enough. But why should religion be an exception and why should an atheist (or anybody else) not be allowed to question your belief?

At the same time you demand answers and proof from everybody else and dare to say "I'm going to ignore it anyway" (in your words: an atheist will never convince a theist that there is no deity). Sorry to say, but that's really arrogant.

So, again, i don't understand why bothering about something you (generically speaking) don't understand and don't believe it exists.

Again:
Religion wants to have an influence on society
I am part of that society
Why shouldn't I have a right to bother?

 

[Rattrap]

Which logical and scientific support are you talking about?

Science:
http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2014/20141029joyce.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
http://www.science20.com/news_artic...try_of_seabed_hot_vents_provide_a_clue-155135

Logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

What you call faulty logic is related to a theory. You can say what you want, but coming from a cell with nucleus is just a theory...

"Just a theory" never seems to go away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

...and the fact that there are no links discovered between the cell and what should have been the first hominids...

False.
http://www.science20.com/news_artic...link_in_the_evolution_of_complex_cells-155372
(there's plenty more, of course, but a simple Google search will sort you out there)

...the fact that there is no evidence about the existence of those first hominids and most of all the fact that there is no evidence or scientific explanation on how those cells with nucleus came into existing and started transforming and replicating into more complex organisms, doesn't make that theory any stronger than the theory of creation.

Some scientific evidence for abiogenesis + copious amounts of evidence for evolution >>> zero evidence for creation. So yes, those theories are by far stronger. If you want to challenge that, you've got to change the balance of that equation: provide some evidence for the 'theory' of creation. I'll even take logical (keeping in mind I've already thrown out the cosmological argument, because it by no means even argues for a creator. It just argues for an uncaused cause, which theists have decided to call 'god' - 'god' does not, however, logically follow).

Faith doesn't need logic or scientific support.

Nor critical thought. And these three difficiencies make faith dangerous.

Those who don't believe in a creator, to the contrary, must explain how is it possible that life exists without a creator and so far they haven't been capable of doing so.

So far. Again, I'm surprised anybody uses the god of gaps argument anymore. It's wrong with every scientific advance - 'god' has a smaller and smaller place to hide. In any case, that research is being done. As you say, we'll have an answer in the near or far away future. In the meantime, those who believe in a creator have the burden of proof to show such a creator exists or every 'theory' derived from it is meaningless. Good luck with that.

i am saying that dismissing a creator as illogical and scientifically unsupported while theorizing something which is also illogical and scientifically unsupported is like the pot calling the kettle black. If one, as per your words, is made up, the other one is made up too.

Quite right. However, as abiogenesis and especially evolution are supported by both science and logic, we've avoided that unfortunate comparison.

 

[dreschi]

I am not religious but I have to defend Sabrina here.

an atheist will never convince a theist that there is no deity

I don't think there is a way to disprove that. No matter what science might find out in the near or far future, I don't think it will ever be possible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. That is a question that simply cannot be scientifically investigated. The only thing that can be investigated are actual claims that any given religion might make, like the earth being only 5,000 years old. That can be investigated and proven wrong. (Fanatics will still believe it, of course.) But disproving such claims does not disprove the existence of a creator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Even Occam's razor does not mean that not assuming there is a creator is going to be ultimately true.

"The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

Now, you might say that not assuming there is a creator is one assumption less than assuming there is a creator. But I'm not sure if that is an apt comparison. Because, if you do not assume that there is a creator, you automatically assume that life originated by some other process. No? (If you think that my reasoning is flawed, feel free to point out how.)

And even if life originated by random chance, you can ask, where did the universe come from? Maybe a creator created it and then left it alone, with life originating by random chance, but not the universe. Or, maybe the creator was casting dice, so to speak, so that the universe was created by random chance, even if there was a creator. (Yes, I do realize that this is very far from what religious people believe in.)

But the point is: There's always the next question around the corner as soon as you have solved one question, and the end might never be reached, so there is always room for a God if you're a believer.

Religion wants to have an influence on society
I am part of that society
Why shouldn't I have a right to bother?

That, on the other hand, is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

I don't think there is a way to disprove that. No matter what science might find out in the near or far future, I don't think it will ever be possible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. That is a question that simply cannot be scientifically investigated. The only thing that can be investigated are actual claims that any given religion might make, like the earth being only 5,000 years old. That can be investigated and proven wrong. (Fanatics will still believe it, of course.) But disproving such claims does not disprove the existence of a creator.

I'm not sure if I understand your disagreement. Sabrina is not talking about an atheist proving there is no deity. but about never being convinced. No one will be able to prove or disprove a deity. The most honest position is to say "I don't know" and based on the examples you give, someone can assess the evidence and arguments and say I believe or I don't believe in a deity. This is an ongoing process where evidence can be added or debunked, and as a result thereof it might change people's mind. So when someone is not willing to provide any proof or arguments, demands proof from everybody else, and in the same breath claims that nothing is going to change her mind despite whatever proof or arguments given... Once again, sorry, but that's arrogance.

 

[Supafly]

The point is:

You either are:

1) someone who is willing to live by a moral code you believe in and that you accept as your code and way of life, including the fact it is an outside belief, meaning you did not develop it yourself, or

2) someone who believes that you have to develop that code yourself, ultimately, and that, after all outside influences, it is your own self that is the highest instance which reigns over you.

If I could KNOW that there is any kind of god, that would dissolve the whole point of faith. Believing is to accept what you don't know. Or, to push it further, if you believe strong enough, belief and knowledge are the same. But then, you have to ask yourself - and the people who you eventually accept as spokespersons of your deity of choice - what you are willing to do in the name of your god.

There we are in the area in which ultiate faith will lead you: If the catalogue of demands and rules that you accept as the words of your god says that nonbelievers are your deadly enemies, you either act, or you fail as a true believer.

I hope that all of you are more of the "convenience" kind of believer that beliees just as much and just the parts that suit his welfare and does not go overboard.

So, peace to all of you, and I hope you have a beautiful time :sunny:

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Sabrina talks about something that you atheists can't understand, as we speak: God. It's not about science and logic, but you can't grasp that because you don't have faith. Everything must have an explanation for you. You probably even weight the love towards your partners according to logic and science. You are boring. For me of course and no pun intended
I wish you all a great fucking evening, about this i'm sure we can agree all

 

[Supafly]

As The Fly refers to himself in the third person, too, possibly we are both on our own path to becoming our inner spiritual being?

Shalom!

 

[dreschi]

I'm not sure if I understand your disagreement. Sabrina is not talking about an atheist proving there is no deity.

I have not read all of Sabrina's posts. But I think there is a difference between saying "you're not gonna convince me anyway" when we talk about something that cannot be proven or disproven, and saying the same thing about something that can be (and has been) disproven, like the earth being 5,000 years old.

Sabrina talks about something that you atheists can't understand, as we speak: God. It's not about science and logic, but you can't grasp that because you don't have faith. Everything must have an explanation for you. You probably even weight the love towards your partners according to logic and science. You are boring. For me of course and no pun intended
I wish you all a great fucking evening, about this i'm sure we can agree all

Sorry to be nitpicking again, but I don't think weighing love towards a partner according to logic and science is an apt comparison. I don't think anyone of us thinks that love is a matter of logic and science. But we have to discern two things:

1. the love you feel towards someone
2. that someone actually existing

And I think atheists are not challenging the first point but the second.

I think you must feel like talking to an asexual person about the glory of sex. Or like someone talking about music to someone who does not like any music at all (there are such people). Or like someone who's trying to talk to people who don't drink beer about the glory of the hops. So I guess, in a way, I can even understand you.

Have a nice evening as well. I sure did, with the glory of the hops.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Sabrina talks about something that you atheists can't understand, as we speak: God. It's not about science and logic, but you can't grasp that because you don't have faith. Everything must have an explanation for you. You probably even weight the love towards your partners according to logic and science. You are boring. For me of course and no pun intended
I wish you all a great fucking evening, about this i'm sure we can agree all

I hope one day you'll understand we're all equal and others have rights too, not just the chosen one's. Thank you for teaching is about religion.
Evening :hatsoff:

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I have not read all of Sabrina's posts. But I think there is a difference between saying "you're not gonna convince me anyway" when we talk about something that cannot be proven or disproven, and saying the same thing about something that can be (and has been) disproven, like the earth being 5,000 years old.


Sorry to be nitpicking again, but I don't think weighing love towards a partner according to logic and science is an apt comparison. I don't think anyone of us thinks that love is a matter of logic and science. But we have to discern two things:

1. the love you feel towards someone
2. that someone actually existing

And I think atheists are not challenging the first point but the second.

I think you must feel like talking to an asexual person about the glory of sex. Or like someone talking about music to someone who does not like any music at all (there are such people). Or like someone who's trying to talk to people who don't drink beer about the glory of the hops. So I guess, in a way, I can even understand you.

Have a nice evening as well. I sure did, with the glory of the hops.

You can love someone who does not exist. No need to believe me about this.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I hope one day you'll understand we're all equal and others have rights too, not just the chosen one's. Thank you for teaching is about religion.
Evening :hatsoff:

We all have the same rights. I don't need to wait until one day to agree with that.
We are not all equal, though. Thanks God.

- - - Updated - - -

As The Fly refers to himself in the third person, too, possibly we are both on our own path to becoming our inner spiritual being?

Shalom!

Shalom.

 

[Rattrap]

I don't think there is a way to disprove that. No matter what science might find out in the near or far future, I don't think it will ever be possible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

I'm not sure if I understand your disagreement. Sabrina is not talking about an atheist proving there is no deity. but about never being convinced. No one will be able to prove or disprove a deity.

And here we touch on falsifiability, which is another take on this whole question, albeit one few find satisfying: if something is not falsifiable, that something is meaningless true or false. Taking Bertrand Russel's teapot as an example, say there's a teapot orbiting around the earth. Someone says great, let's get a telescope. Well, it's invisible. Okay, let's get some radar. Well, it's too small be to be detected by radar. Okay, let's build a big net to 'feel' it. Oh, it's also incorporeal. And so on. In the end you get an object that has no effect, affects nothing and cannot be affected - in other words, it makes no difference whether or not that object actually exists.

Even Occam's razor does not mean that not assuming there is a creator is going to be ultimately true.

"The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

Now, you might say that not assuming there is a creator is one assumption less than assuming there is a creator. But I'm not sure if that is an apt comparison. Because, if you do not assume that there is a creator, you automatically assume that life originated by some other process. No? (If you think that my reasoning is flawed, feel free to point out how.)

It goes a bit deeper than the binary of no creator or creator - such a creature would have to be by definition supernatural and therefore impossibly complex. It's not just assuming 'a creator', but a near-to-actually infinitely complex being - this requires a lot more assumption than those based on already observable facts in nature (such as that abiogenesis happened through natural, explainable processes that we just haven't found out yet). You're right in saying it doesn't prove against god - just that that hypotheses is near the end of the line.

And even if life originated by random chance, you can ask, where did the universe come from? Maybe a creator created it and then left it alone, with life originating by random chance, but not the universe. Or, maybe the creator was casting dice, so to speak, so that the universe was created by random chance, even if there was a creator. (Yes, I do realize that this is very far from what religious people believe in.)

This is deism, and much like falsifiability, is a sort of irrelevant conclusion - what I mean by irrelevant is that if it's true or not, it makes no difference to us here and now. If no creator is paying attention to us or acting on us as theists believe, said creator might as well just be the big bang with 'god' slapped on it.

But the point is: There's always the next question around the corner as soon as you have solved one question, and the end might never be reached, so there is always room for a God if you're a believer.

Almost as if god were designed to last, no?

The most honest position is to say "I don't know" and based on the examples you give, someone can assess the evidence and arguments and say I believe or I don't believe in a deity.

Truth. "I don't know" is often the most honest position, and in any situation where no evidence or logic points in either direction, that is the only reasonable position to take. This isn't the case with a deity, however; while no evidence explicitly against a deity exists, implicitly there is (natural laws as we understand them) and more importantly, plenty of evidence to suggest a much more likely origin for god - in psychology (see Sigmund Freud, for example).

In an argument where position A has no logical or empirical evidence and position B has quite a bit of both, albeit inconclusively, the reasonable position is to go with B despite the inconclusivity. Add in a position C that explains position A in a far more likely manner (this the psychological origin for position A), position A becames even more unreasonable to take.

This is an ongoing process where evidence can be added or debunked, and as a result thereof it might change people's mind. So when someone is not willing to provide any proof or arguments, demands proof from everybody else, and in the same breath claims that nothing is going to change her mind despite whatever proof or arguments given... Once again, sorry, but that's arrogance.

I just posted to georges about the definition of unreasonable, and here you've brought it up in more or less the same form. :thumbsup:

Believing is to accept what you don't know.

I see it oppositely; if people simply accepted what they didn't know, deities wouldn't be a thing. They exist because people don't except what they don't know and create an answer in that space. The god of gaps.

Sabrina talks about something that you atheists can't understand, as we speak: God. It's not about science and logic, but you can't grasp that because you don't have faith. Everything must have an explanation for you. You probably even weight the love towards your partners according to logic and science. You are boring. For me of course and no pun intended
I wish you all a great fucking evening, about this i'm sure we can agree all

On the contrary, I understand god as well as one can with only a small bit of pschology in my background. The difference being understanding what and why god is as opposed to what many want god to be. That you say everything must have an explanation to us is particularly rich, considering we aren't the ones making up explanations to fill the gaps in our knowledge. But it seems you aren't interested in defending your positions so I won't go any further. Seeing as this is a porn forum after all this these sorts of discussions take time, that's genuinely fair enough.

So a wonderful evening/morning/day/night to you too.