1712 replies to this topic

[steampoweredgod]

the message got worse in the quran or maybe more beautiful in some mind less bound by the parameters of perfection or maybe too bound by them to see anything at all.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 04 April 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[steampoweredgod]

YEAH JUST TELL IT STRAIGHT LOVE IS RAPE!


yOUR LATEST ATTEMPT AT KILLING ME FAIL!KEEP TRYING I WONT FORGET!

[steampoweredgod]

YOU WILL FIND THAT WHILE I MAY NOT BELIEVE IN DEATH I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION THE ONLY ONE TRUE LAW! if THE LANGUAGE OF NATURE IS INDEED MATHEMATICS THAN EVOLUTION MUST BE DEFINED BY A MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE. IF THERE IS PROOF THAN THERE IS PROOF OF TRUTH? ISN'T THERE?

Edited by steampoweredgod, 04 April 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[steampoweredgod]

tHE DEATH OF AERIS WHILE IT CAUSED NO FEELING FELT MORE ENGROSSING THAN THE REAL LIFE AND DISEASE OF THOSE AROUND ME.

tHE WORD'S OF PAI FROM 3X3 EYES, FELT LIKE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. A MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, THOUGH SOME MATHEMATICIAN SAID THEIR PROOF IMPLIED INSECT FLIGHT WAS IMPOSSIBLE THEIR ABSTRACTION MERELY LAID SOME ASTRAY EVENTUALLY THEY REALIZE THAT WITHIN IMPLIED IMPOSSIBILITY LAID IMPLIED TRUTH AND PROOF. GODEL+hILBERT=NO CONFLICT DEVOID ABSTRACTION.

[steampoweredgod]

YOU MAY THINK MADOKA IS REAL BUT QBEY WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST OR SAY SOMETHING INTERESTING IN RETURN, EPISODE LAST MAGIC MADOKA MAGICA?

[steampoweredgod]

A GIRL BECOMES A GOD AFTER DEATH?

[shifter]

Okay, my take

Some people say "There is no such thing as aliens". The universe is inifinte. How do they KNOW that over 15+ billion years no other life has ever existed. Anywhere. Are they as old as the universe? Have the been to every spot in the universe at every moment in time to tell us definitely? It's this sort of statement people make that sounds arrogant. To me, the onus of proof lies with them. Not to the people that simply say 'I BELIEVE aliens exist'

When you say 'BELIEVE' the onus is not on you to provide physcial EVIDENCE. Belief is all about FAITH.

[steampoweredgod]

Okay, my take

Some people say "There is no such thing as aliens". The universe is inifinte. How do they KNOW that over 15+ billion years no other life has ever existed. Anywhere. Are they as old as the universe? Have the been to every spot in the universe at every moment in time to tell us definitely? It's this sort of statement people make that sounds arrogant. To me, the onus of proof lies with them. Not to the people that simply say 'I BELIEVE aliens exist'

When you say 'BELIEVE' the onus is not on you to provide physcial EVIDENCE. Belief is all about FAITH.

BEAUTIFUL

[steampoweredgod]

reality
http://www.youtube.c...l2-2j2j2j2l9l0.

virtual reality

Edited by steampoweredgod, 05 April 2012 - 06:30 AM.

[steampoweredgod]

equation = god

[steampoweredgod]

HOLOGRAPHIC LAPIS LAZULI

Edited by steampoweredgod, 05 April 2012 - 06:34 AM.

[steampoweredgod]

OF course you will find going out with lapis lazuli fascinating.


CELESTIAL ARMADA

[youtube][youtube]

[steampoweredgod]

[mikeinnaples]

When you say 'BELIEVE' the onus is not on you to provide physcial EVIDENCE. Belief is all about FAITH.

You cannot prove something without evidence. Faith is not evidence of something's existence.

You also cannot ask someone to prove that something does NOT exist. If you actually had the power to prove that something doesn't exist, then you would have to have the power of the very god we are debating about. Heh

[DAMABO]

Where is the evidence and proof? I know you are going to run away. Go ahead, you have said nothing meaningful anyway. Off Topic.

The proof is in the absence of evidence for gods. You have been told this a million times already, so perhaps you should listen?

The question is "Evidence and proof for Atheism." I have given many evidences for theism that I mentioned in my last post. You here admit you have none.

Where have I been told this a million times already that the lack of evidence for god is the evidence for Atheism?. What bull. Read where I dealt with this. 6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

You have your own burden of proof and I note you didn't relate to my post on it at all. Here it is again.

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

"Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls only on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?

You can see Atheists play the why game most of us learned as children. All you have to do is ask a version of “why,” any time any theist makes a statement about God. Does the Atheist also get to play? No because Atheists clame they don’t believe anything and have no burden of proof.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.

It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).

The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here in this post, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism. Where is the evidence?"

See one of the reasons why it is more useful to maintain that god does not exist is that this hypothesis is easily falsified. This in contrast with there is a god. Can anyone disprove that god exists? Even if we somehow scanned the entire cosmos, god could still exist in a number of ways, because god seems to range from a bearded guy to an invisible spirit that pervades the cosmos.

You are off topic. I have made many arguments for the existence of God while Atheists have given none for Atheism. If you want to address some of them, please do. I have posted these sources earlier.

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? None yet. No reason here but childish Atheist Logical Fallacies and baby squalling. Lets try this.

I have already responded this one, but I will do it again (because you haven't answered yet).

1. How am I off topic?
2. I still haven't heared your arguments for the existence of god. Or is that off topic? Please be concise, I don't have the courage to read/ watch hundreds of articles or videos where there is only one sentence interesting. So please, be short and to the point, don't send ten videos.
3. "No reason here, but Atheist logical fallacies and baby squalling": you resort into exactly what you tell everybody to not do. ad hominem attacks.
4. Atheists have given many reasons for their beliefs: namely we don't observe a god. This is not a proof, but it is evidence (what you asked for).Is it not evidence based then that we use the hypothesis 'there is no god' until we can falsify this hypothesis, and by seeing god we can conclude he does exist. The reverse would be rather impractical: assuming some thing exists, where we have no observational evidence for.
5. Existence of God is highly dependent on your definition of god. If it is some bearded guy that is everywhere at once and helps the people of Israel, I don't estimate it likely of him existing. So, what kind of god do you believe in?

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO: I have already responded this one, but I will do it again (because you haven't answered yet).
1. How am I off topic?

You are still off topic and are trying to get me to also follow you. Read the thread description. If you want to discuss evidence for God, I will provide you sources at the end of this post. Join me there.

2. I still haven't heared your arguments for the existence of god. Or is that off topic? Please be concise, I don't have the courage to read/ watch hundreds of articles or videos where there is only one sentence interesting. So please, be short and to the point, don't send ten videos

.

Now you want to restrict the discussion that has been going on for some time. You want a one sentence answer to an off topic question? Oh yes, it also has to be interesting to you. What if I am not interested in this set up?
.

3. "No reason here, but Atheist logical fallacies and baby squalling": you resort into exactly what you tell everybody to not do. ad hominem attacks.

Logical Fallacies? I was referencing the last Atheist posts here and elsewhere. Are you saying these Atheist posts are not full of Logical Fallacies? http://afterall.net/illogic
http://www.fallacies.ca/welcome.htm
http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

Baby squalling? Listen.

4. Atheists have given many reasons for their beliefs: namely we don't observe a god. This is not a proof, but it is evidence (what you asked for).Is it not evidence based then that we use the hypothesis 'there is no god' until we can falsify this hypothesis, and by seeing god we can conclude he does exist. The reverse would be rather impractical: assuming some thing exists, where we have no observational evidence for.

In one sentence tell me what the Atheism evidences are! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Did you read it? I think not. Do you only believe what you can see! What a joke! See... 6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

5. Existence of God is highly dependent on your definition of god. If it is some bearded guy that is everywhere at once and helps the people of Israel, I don't estimate it likely of him existing. So, what kind of god do you believe in?

That is your definition? Sounds like a grade school child. No wonder you doubt His existence. So do I. Your definition of God does not make him any more than the dictionary making things. It takes more than a concept like this to understand rationally God or anything else. Here are a few sources but it is off topic.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases. Here both sides are well represented.

http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.

http://www.longecity...post__p__434098



DEIST ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD

http://www.positived.../arguments.html

CHRISTIN ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 April 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[shadowhawk]

mikeinnaples: You have made exactly 0 VALID arguments for the existence of a god. ...and stop being such a flaming hypocrite with the name calling.

Which argument are you talking about? I am not talking about God here. This says nothing. Off topic.

If there is a god, he cares nothing for you because you are not worth the time involved with making its presence known. If there is a god, you are insignificant to it. You are meaningless and nothing, because your god cares so little about its creation that it won't even reveal itself to its creations. If there is a god, it forces you to engage in silly, baseless arguments (ok, ok ...reposting OTHER people's arguments since you are incapable of thinking for yourself) rather than making it undeniable fact. If there is a god, it forces you to cling to hocus pocus fairy tales and myths, most of which have been debunked by real science... forces you to look stupid instead. If there is a god, then that god hasn't proven itself worthy of worship from anyone with a rational mind and enough self esteem to be unbothered by it.

Are you now speaking for God? Weird.

I have and others have proven the existence of Atheism a dozen times already. I will not rehash it just because you act the part of a child by sticking your finger in your ears and pretending not to hear it. Grow the fuck up and stop making blatant troll threads.

What are you smoking. You have done nothing of the kind. Nonsense. I didn’t ask about the existence of Atheism, rather EVIDENCE and proof for it. No reason or evidence for Atheism here. Straw man. Here is but another Atheist posts full of Logical Fallacies.

[shifter]

This is kind of my point. Aethiests tell us 'God' (or the idea of one) doesn't exist - people who believe can not provide physcial proof etc so case closed. But the fact is, no one knows with exact certainty exactly WHAT is out there or HOW the univerese was created.

Aethiests (to me IMO) have closed their minds. Do not except any sort of concept as even highly improbable
Agnostics have more open minds to the idea or possibility that something could exist, but just dont have the evidence or proof.


We know the universe was created. So how?



One of the definitions of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" and the belief in God is really all about that.

All the religious people TRYING to show PROOF of God here are doing it wrong. The whole point of believing in him is THROUGH FAITH. Thats the whole point.


As Agnostic belief goes, I say, there is FAR MORE to this universe than the human mind WILL EVER comprehend. I refuse to close my mind and think as a human I am the most superior thing and I know the most. To be honest, I (and every other human) doesn't know shit about our universe. I wont prentend I do either. IMO Aethiests in their 'certainty' claim they know. (eg like someone who is vehement in their claims that alien life is not out there somewhere)

You also cannot ask someone to prove that something does NOT exist. If you actually had the power to prove that something doesn't exist, then you would have to have the power of the very god we are debating about. Heh

[Link]

This is kind of my point. Aethiests tell us 'God' (or the idea of one) doesn't exist - people who believe can not provide physcial proof etc so case closed. But the fact is, no one knows with exact certainty exactly WHAT is out there or HOW the univerese was created.

You clearly have not read the actual arguments put forward by atheists in this thread. It is theists who are asserting with certainty how the universe was created, not atheists.

Aethiests (to me IMO) have closed their minds. Do not except any sort of concept as even highly improbable
Agnostics have more open minds to the idea or possibility that something could exist, but just dont have the evidence or proof.

The only way the God of the Bible could exist if he was some sort of crazy bi-polar trickster out to deliberately deceive rational people into thinking he did not exist.

We know the universe was created. So how?

We don't know.

But simply because we don't know does not mean that "God did it". People have asserted that argument countless times throughout history and they have so far always been wrong.

One of the definitions of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" and the belief in God is really all about that.

All the religious people TRYING to show PROOF of God here are doing it wrong. The whole point of believing in him is THROUGH FAITH. Thats the whole point.

You call it faith, i call it foolishness. I don't believe in vampires or werewolves or warlocks either, but show me one and i would believe. Atheists simply apply the same standard of scrutiny to all things and don't make an exception for something simply because they wish it were true. This is what theists are doing.

As Agnostic belief goes, I say, there is FAR MORE to this universe than the human mind WILL EVER comprehend. I refuse to close my mind and think as a human I am the most superior thing and I know the most. To be honest, I (and every other human) doesn't know shit about our universe. I wont prentend I do either. IMO Aethiests in their 'certainty' claim they know. (eg like someone who is vehement in their claims that alien life is not out there somewhere)

Once again, atheists are simply applying the same standard of scrutiny to all things which are claimed to exist. What exactly is arrogant about not believing in something simply because there is no evidence for it?

How is it not more arrogant to claim you are the chosen people of the creator of the universe, forged in his image?

[shifter]

You clearly have not read the actual arguments put forward by atheists in this thread. It is theists who are asserting with certainty how the universe was created, not atheists.

You are right on that. This thread looks so 'spammed' or people degraded from both sides of the argument I had just posted 'my take' from reading the 1st page

We don't know.

But simply because we don't know does not mean that "God did it". People have asserted that argument countless times throughout history and they have so far always been wrong.

Agnostic belief doesn't believe in a 'God' who did this either. It doesn't subscribe to any doctrine. It's just having a mind open to the possibility (no matter how remote) that maybe a higher power, energy, force etc way beyond our understanding could be responsible. We just dont know.

Our universe could be the result of another universe's alien in a lab playing with particle accelerators. We dont know. Maybe our own Hadron Collider has done something similar. Those nanosecond explosions could be the birth and death of a new universe. Time is a man made concept. In those brief nanoseonds, maybe 15+billion 'years' happened inside that universe before being blinked out. Who knows what life went on in there? lol

You call it faith, i call it foolishness. I don't believe in vampires or werewolves or warlocks either, but show me one and i would believe. Atheists simply apply the same standard of scrutiny to all things and don't make an exception for something simply because they wish it were true. This is what theists are doing.

Many people who have had troubled lives, who are introduced to the mere idea of God, have turned their lives around for the better and the betterment of those around them. I know someone that if they never had faith in God, would have committed suicide long before I knew her. Now she is alive with beautiful children and doing wonderful things. Is her faith foolish? Just the idea can be powerful enough to inspire people to do great things. What you do with it is up to you of course, but I'd hardly call it foolishness. Foolishness is when people use their faith for intolerance, hatred and destruction (like suicide bombers).

Once again, atheists are simply applying the same standard of scrutiny to all things which are claimed to exist. What exactly is arrogant about not believing in something simply because there is no evidence for it?

This is fine for the atheists who simply lack a belief in God but do accept/tolerant of people around them who have a faith in something.

It is just those that tell you until they are blue in the face that INSIST that there is no such thing as a God, higher power, spirit, other plains of existence etc. My question to them is simply 'well how do you know all that'

How is it not more arrogant to claim you are the chosen people of the creator of the universe, forged in his image?

Agnostic people do not subscribe to this ideology. They dont subscribe to any currently out there.

There are many definitions we could apply to 'His image'. It could simply be what he wanted us to look like. Not what HE looks like (or IT).

I have spent the last 3 years developing a new mouse strain. That mouse does not look like me but it is my image and what I wanted it to look like (in terms of its genes etc). 'God' can have many definitions too.

I could be these particular mice's 'God'. Their cage can be their 'Garden of Eden'. They get everything they want, are free from predators, they mate with who and when I want them to etc. I can come in at any time and kill them if I chose (-although I'd be fired hehe). Now suppose they pissed me off but didn't want to kill them. I could let them roam the Earth where they would have to fend for themselves, deal with predators and death on a daily basis etc. This story has a parallel to another famous one if you get my drift. I have this power over these lives, so why cant I be 'their' God.


And to quote what I just said earlier

It is just those that tell you until they are blue in the face that INSIST that there is no such thing as a God, higher power, spirit, other plains of existence etc. My question to them is simply 'well how do you know all that'

If you then ask them again 'ARE YOU SURE' and they say 'YES' well isn't that believing? The thing is NO ONE ON EARTH HAS THE ANSWER. But these people that are REALLY SURE that there is NO SUCH THING as a God, higher power, spirit, other plains of existence etc must have some answer or knowledge I dont know about. Believing in a higher power is simply having a faith is something immaterial.

Also what I would like to point out to Atheists is that Atheism is the greatest weapon used by the Governments of China and North Korea on their people. Because belief and spirit = power. In the middle east, whole countries are 'uprising' against their governments. It is doubtful it would happen if predominately the people were atheists.

I believe that everyone should have religious freedom (including the freedom to not believe) thats the whole point of belief!

And replace the word IMPOSSIBLE with IMPROBABLE (no matter how highly) and see what happens.

Edited by shifter, 06 April 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

This is kind of my point. Aethiests tell us 'God' (or the idea of one) doesn't exist - people who believe can not provide physcial proof etc so case closed. But the fact is, no one knows with exact certainty exactly WHAT is out there or HOW the univerese was created.

You are absolutely right. We do not know, yet, how the universe was created and quite honestly even the creation of it is still theory. That doesnt mean I can automatically attribute it to a deity just becauseI dont know the answer. I cannot personally rationalize the existence of a god without evidence anymore than I can rationalize the existence of tooth fairies, easter bunnies, and the great pumpkin. I used to believe in those some of those things as a child, but I grew up. Much the same occurred in regards to my belief in a god.

Aethiests (to me IMO) have closed their minds. Do not except any sort of concept as even highly improbable
Agnostics have more open minds to the idea or possibility that something could exist, but just dont have the evidence or proof.

I wouldn't say that a reasonable athiest can say a god doesn't exist with 100% certainty any more than a reasonable theist can say that a god does exist with 100% certainty.

We know the universe was created. So how?

Quite honestly, this question is an example of one of the many reasons behind religion, mysticism, etc. Just because we cannot explain something 'yet' does not mean that it can be attributed to a supernatural being. Think about how the 'gods' were used to explain things throughout history, until science completely debunked them ...even things as simple to modern man as understanding why the sun appears to move across the sky. (hint: it isnt because a god is pulling it with his flaming and flying chariot!)


One of the definitions of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" and the belief in God is really all about that.

All the religious people TRYING to show PROOF of God here are doing it wrong. The whole point of believing in him is THROUGH FAITH. Thats the whole point.

That isn't anymore acceptable to me as a reasonable statement than someone telling me that if I commit suicide when a comet passes by, a space ship trailing in its wake will grab me and take me to the stars. They are both faith based, and to me equally irrational. Please realize I am not trying to dig on you personally (well as an agnostic, I guess its hard for you to take wha tI said personally anyways), that is not my intent. I welcome a poster like you who is having a real conversation rather than a poster like Shadowhawk who is blatantly trolling and does nothing but post other people's arguments.

As Agnostic belief goes, I say, there is FAR MORE to this universe than the human mind WILL EVER comprehend. I refuse to close my mind and think as a human I am the most superior thing and I know the most. To be honest, I (and every other human) doesn't know shit about our universe. I wont prentend I do either. IMO Aethiests in their 'certainty' claim they know. (eg like someone who is vehement in their claims that alien life is not out there somewhere)

I think you got it wrong about most atheists.I would venture to say that atheists are MORE open minded about things than theists by a long shot. Why? We look for real answers rather than attributing things we don't understand to deities.

My responses are quoted inline above. Thanks for the comments.

... maybe I am more technically agnostic than atheist.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 06 April 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO: I have already responded this one, but I will do it again (because you haven't answered yet).
1. How am I off topic?

You are still off topic and are trying to get me to also follow you. Read the thread description. If you want to discuss evidence for God, I will provide you sources at the end of this post. Join me there.

2. I still haven't heared your arguments for the existence of god. Or is that off topic? Please be concise, I don't have the courage to read/ watch hundreds of articles or videos where there is only one sentence interesting. So please, be short and to the point, don't send ten videos

.

Now you want to restrict the discussion that has been going on for some time. You want a one sentence answer to an off topic question? Oh yes, it also has to be interesting to you. What if I am not interested in this set up?
.

3. "No reason here, but Atheist logical fallacies and baby squalling": you resort into exactly what you tell everybody to not do. ad hominem attacks.

Logical Fallacies? I was referencing the last Atheist posts here and elsewhere. Are you saying these Atheist posts are not full of Logical Fallacies? http://afterall.net/illogic
http://www.fallacies.ca/welcome.htm
http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

Baby squalling? Listen.

4. Atheists have given many reasons for their beliefs: namely we don't observe a god. This is not a proof, but it is evidence (what you asked for).Is it not evidence based then that we use the hypothesis 'there is no god' until we can falsify this hypothesis, and by seeing god we can conclude he does exist. The reverse would be rather impractical: assuming some thing exists, where we have no observational evidence for.

In one sentence tell me what the Atheism evidences are! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Did you read it? I think not. Do you only believe what you can see! What a joke! See... 6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

5. Existence of God is highly dependent on your definition of god. If it is some bearded guy that is everywhere at once and helps the people of Israel, I don't estimate it likely of him existing. So, what kind of god do you believe in?

That is your definition? Sounds like a grade school child. No wonder you doubt His existence. So do I. Your definition of God does not make him any more than the dictionary making things. It takes more than a concept like this to understand rationally God or anything else. Here are a few sources but it is off topic.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases. Here both sides are well represented.

http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.

http://www.longecity...post__p__434098



DEIST ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD

http://www.positived.../arguments.html

CHRISTIN ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD.

I will here maintain the chapters 1 to 5.

1. I am discussing evidence for the absense of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absense of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.
2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.
3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.
4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.
5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO: I have already responded this one, but I will do it again (because you haven't answered yet).
1. How am I off topic?

You are still off topic and are trying to get me to also follow you. Read the thread description. If you want to discuss evidence for God, I will provide you sources at the end of this post. Join me there.

2. I still haven't heared your arguments for the existence of god. Or is that off topic? Please be concise, I don't have the courage to read/ watch hundreds of articles or videos where there is only one sentence interesting. So please, be short and to the point, don't send ten videos

.

Now you want to restrict the discussion that has been going on for some time. You want a one sentence answer to an off topic question? Oh yes, it also has to be interesting to you. What if I am not interested in this set up?
.

3. "No reason here, but Atheist logical fallacies and baby squalling": you resort into exactly what you tell everybody to not do. ad hominem attacks.

Logical Fallacies? I was referencing the last Atheist posts here and elsewhere. Are you saying these Atheist posts are not full of Logical Fallacies? http://afterall.net/illogic
http://www.fallacies.ca/welcome.htm
http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

Baby squalling? Listen.

4. Atheists have given many reasons for their beliefs: namely we don't observe a god. This is not a proof, but it is evidence (what you asked for).Is it not evidence based then that we use the hypothesis 'there is no god' until we can falsify this hypothesis, and by seeing god we can conclude he does exist. The reverse would be rather impractical: assuming some thing exists, where we have no observational evidence for.

In one sentence tell me what the Atheism evidences are! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Did you read it? I think not. Do you only believe what you can see! What a joke! See... 6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

5. Existence of God is highly dependent on your definition of god. If it is some bearded guy that is everywhere at once and helps the people of Israel, I don't estimate it likely of him existing. So, what kind of god do you believe in?

That is your definition? Sounds like a grade school child. No wonder you doubt His existence. So do I. Your definition of God does not make him any more than the dictionary making things. It takes more than a concept like this to understand rationally God or anything else. Here are a few sources but it is off topic.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases. Here both sides are well represented.

http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.

http://www.longecity...post__p__434098



DEIST ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD

http://www.positived.../arguments.html

CHRISTIN ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Damn. I just send a post regarding the video. It was pretty long, but it got lost. I will try to reconstruct it.

some arguments he made:
1. a cause has to be greater then its effect:
-stems from Descartes, and is not clearly defined: what does greater then mean? in which dimensions?
-has no empirical support, as far as I know
2. god is the best explanation why something exists rather than nothing:
-that's easy...
3. transcendent, immaterial being
-what does transcendent even mean? this word is used in so many contexts
-immaterial: I wil get back to this in the following point, but it is and always will be empirically untestable to declare something is immaterial.
4. the big bang:
-he says it is a creation ex nihilo, while it is supposed to be an infinitely dense point (already consists of matter) that expanded into a less dense universe
-if the big bang is really the one and only bang, and if the big bang is really 'the beginning of space and time', 'something out of nothing', then maybe an immaterial being may be held responsible for it. However, isn't it much easier to either accept that there are multiple bangs (cyclic universe theory), multiple universes (multiverse hypothesis), or even that there is no big bang (plasma cosmology) and/or that the universe is infinite, than to declare 'something which doesn't exist in the observable world' that supposedly created everything, which we will never be able to test. Isn't it much easier to look for alternative theories then, if big bang really implies that 'something came out of nothing', which would be against the law of conservation of matter. Whichever theory might hold up (big bang of course the most popular one for now, but how many theories about billions of years ago survive centuries?), the theory that there is an immaterial being will never be proven empirically.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO: I have already responded this one, but I will do it again (because you haven't answered yet).
1. How am I off topic?

You are still off topic and are trying to get me to also follow you. Read the thread description. If you want to discuss evidence for God, I will provide you sources at the end of this post. Join me there.

2. I still haven't heared your arguments for the existence of god. Or is that off topic? Please be concise, I don't have the courage to read/ watch hundreds of articles or videos where there is only one sentence interesting. So please, be short and to the point, don't send ten videos

.

Now you want to restrict the discussion that has been going on for some time. You want a one sentence answer to an off topic question? Oh yes, it also has to be interesting to you. What if I am not interested in this set up?
.

3. "No reason here, but Atheist logical fallacies and baby squalling": you resort into exactly what you tell everybody to not do. ad hominem attacks.

Logical Fallacies? I was referencing the last Atheist posts here and elsewhere. Are you saying these Atheist posts are not full of Logical Fallacies? http://afterall.net/illogic
http://www.fallacies.ca/welcome.htm
http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

Baby squalling? Listen.

4. Atheists have given many reasons for their beliefs: namely we don't observe a god. This is not a proof, but it is evidence (what you asked for).Is it not evidence based then that we use the hypothesis 'there is no god' until we can falsify this hypothesis, and by seeing god we can conclude he does exist. The reverse would be rather impractical: assuming some thing exists, where we have no observational evidence for.

In one sentence tell me what the Atheism evidences are! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Did you read it? I think not. Do you only believe what you can see! What a joke! See... 6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

5. Existence of God is highly dependent on your definition of god. If it is some bearded guy that is everywhere at once and helps the people of Israel, I don't estimate it likely of him existing. So, what kind of god do you believe in?

That is your definition? Sounds like a grade school child. No wonder you doubt His existence. So do I. Your definition of God does not make him any more than the dictionary making things. It takes more than a concept like this to understand rationally God or anything else. Here are a few sources but it is off topic.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases. Here both sides are well represented.

http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.

http://www.longecity...post__p__434098



DEIST ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD

http://www.positived.../arguments.html

CHRISTIN ARGUMENT FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Or let me put it this way: "Immateriality exists" is a contradictio in terminis. If immateriality really existed, you could really explain anything by immaterial forces that have no basis in the real, material world. "What's the cause of the unknown force?" -"it's immaterial".
I don't tend to subscribe to such an unparsimonious solution that will never have any evidence going for it. If something is material, it should be detectable. If something is detectable, by whatever sensors, it is material. If something is immaterial, no one can ever observe it, because it supposedly lies beneath all things. But if it really would one day would be detectable by technology, then that would be an indication that it is material, since only material/physical things exist in the world of perception. So what lies beyond the realm of the physical? That which is not yet observed to be physical (but in se is physical), but not that which is immaterial.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 April 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[hooter]

I posit that this thread is fantastic evidence for mental illness

[shadowhawk]

I posit that this thread is fantastic evidence for mental illness

Don't be so hard on yourself. life is good!

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 April 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Edited by DAMABO, 06 April 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. ( So God is materialistic?) See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Sorry but I have continued this off topic "God" conversation elsewhere as i referenced above. Stick to the subject. You have already voted there is no evidence for Atheism. Want to talk about God? Sure. see below.

http://www.longecity...post__p__510269

http://www.longecity...post__p__510247

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 April 2012 - 01:54 AM.

[shifter]

I take all your points you made on board. It's good to understand others way of thinking so that I might adjust mine. I like to have civilised discussions about religion. I think it's good mental stimulation. It can be a mental headache filtering through all the people just spamming though haha

One positive thing I will say about Religion (another IMO and specifically I am talking about Christianity/Catholism etc as thats the only ones I am familiar with) are the morals and ethics they place on modern day society (things like 'love thy neighbour', respect for others, compassion for those less fortunate etc). <-I'm not saying these ideals are anti atheist in any way!! But in countries where the governments and its people are predominately Christian etc, these ideals became the society values, no matter the religion.


I've been in China which is predominately Atheist. Materialism is the most important thing to most people there. (I say most because I do not wish to generalise). Money for most comes before love. Marriages are more 'business' arrangements for many. If you so happen to help someone out who hurt themselves, expect to be sued. Because to quote a judge to a man who helped a woman stranger get to a hospital "Why would you help her if you did not injure her" (or words to that effect). Totally oblivious to the concept of just 'helping out'

On a trip to China, the people there try to cheat you out of your money everywhere you go. Taxis dont turn on the meter so they can charge you 3x as much, it's hell to shop there. They watch you like a hawk. Pick something up to look at it and expect to buy it or they will be very angry!! Incorrect change given, basically I expected to be cheated everywhere I went. You would be hard pressed to find anybody there that smiled at a stranger. And we all probably saw the news how nearly 20 people had walked by a dying toddler who was run over. Twice. Horrible. But when a society is so focused on materialism, this can be the result.

Another time a man injured a woman on a bicycle. She was fine but when he saw her memorise his number plates he stabbed her to death so he didn't have to deal with compensation. If your caught running over someones child, the first question that can be asked to the parents is 'how much do I owe you?' Life over there has a dollar figure attached to it, and even then it's not very much. It's not viewed as a priceless gift by many.

Across the border in South Korea which is predominately Christian, the difference is night/day. Customer is king and everyone smiles. (I went there too).

Religion, whether you and I believe it or not or whether there is any truth or substance to it, is still important to society. It's been a part of our culture for thousands of years and it's ideals are 'nice'. That's why I want to send my future children to a catholic/christian school and have them attend church etc. It's the same way I was brought up and I think also for a child's developing brain, to have a role model like 'Jesus' is a positive one and that having faith opens up their mind. What they do when they are older and on their own is up to them.

There are various levels of Agnosticism. Most of the people I found who dont traditionally believe in any religion classed themselves as Atheist but never heard of the word Agnostic. They usually then identify themselves on one of these levels in Agnosticism

Have a look at the wiki here http://en.wikipedia....iki/Agnosticism (under the subject 'Types of Agnosticism')

This is kind of my point. Aethiests tell us 'God' (or the idea of one) doesn't exist - people who believe can not provide physcial proof etc so case closed. But the fact is, no one knows with exact certainty exactly WHAT is out there or HOW the univerese was created.

You are absolutely right. We do not know, yet, how the universe was created and quite honestly even the creation of it is still theory. That doesnt mean I can automatically attribute it to a deity just becauseI dont know the answer. I cannot personally rationalize the existence of a god without evidence anymore than I can rationalize the existence of tooth fairies, easter bunnies, and the great pumpkin. I used to believe in those some of those things as a child, but I grew up. Much the same occurred in regards to my belief in a god.

Aethiests (to me IMO) have closed their minds. Do not except any sort of concept as even highly improbable
Agnostics have more open minds to the idea or possibility that something could exist, but just dont have the evidence or proof.

I wouldn't say that a reasonable athiest can say a god doesn't exist with 100% certainty any more than a reasonable theist can say that a god does exist with 100% certainty.

We know the universe was created. So how?

Quite honestly, this question is an example of one of the many reasons behind religion, mysticism, etc. Just because we cannot explain something 'yet' does not mean that it can be attributed to a supernatural being. Think about how the 'gods' were used to explain things throughout history, until science completely debunked them ...even things as simple to modern man as understanding why the sun appears to move across the sky. (hint: it isnt because a god is pulling it with his flaming and flying chariot!)


One of the definitions of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" and the belief in God is really all about that.

All the religious people TRYING to show PROOF of God here are doing it wrong. The whole point of believing in him is THROUGH FAITH. Thats the whole point.

That isn't anymore acceptable to me as a reasonable statement than someone telling me that if I commit suicide when a comet passes by, a space ship trailing in its wake will grab me and take me to the stars. They are both faith based, and to me equally irrational. Please realize I am not trying to dig on you personally (well as an agnostic, I guess its hard for you to take wha tI said personally anyways), that is not my intent. I welcome a poster like you who is having a real conversation rather than a poster like Shadowhawk who is blatantly trolling and does nothing but post other people's arguments.

As Agnostic belief goes, I say, there is FAR MORE to this universe than the human mind WILL EVER comprehend. I refuse to close my mind and think as a human I am the most superior thing and I know the most. To be honest, I (and every other human) doesn't know shit about our universe. I wont prentend I do either. IMO Aethiests in their 'certainty' claim they know. (eg like someone who is vehement in their claims that alien life is not out there somewhere)

I think you got it wrong about most atheists.I would venture to say that atheists are MORE open minded about things than theists by a long shot. Why? We look for real answers rather than attributing things we don't understand to deities.

My responses are quoted inline above. Thanks for the comments.

... maybe I am more technically agnostic than atheist.

Edited by shifter, 07 April 2012 - 01:20 AM.