Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 184 of 184
Like Tree102Likes

Thread: Why is it so hard to disprove religion?

  1. #101  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Its all scifi until its proven not to be.

    May I ask why you call it sci-fi if there is hardly (if there is any at all) science in religious teachings?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Its all scifi until its proven not to be.

    May I ask why you call it sci-fi if there is hardly (if there is any at all) science in religious teachings?
    off subject

    We had a foreign exchange student live with us...from Brussels,....and it was a mutual love...20 years later, we are still in touch. Visited her there and my GF lived there for 3 years also.......you have a very beautiful country and I loved Bruges! I love the song about it also by Judy Collins!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Its all scifi until its proven not to be.

    May I ask why you call it sci-fi if there is hardly (if there is any at all) science in religious teachings?
    off subject

    We had a foreign exchange student live with us...from Brussels,....and it was a mutual love...20 years later, we are still in touch. Visited her there and my GF lived there for 3 years also.......you have a very beautiful country and I loved Bruges! I love the song about it also by Judy Collins!

    Thank you!
    I seldom receive compliments about my country, thus it is nice to see that you have enjoyed what we offer.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Its all scifi until its proven not to be.

    May I ask why you call it sci-fi if there is hardly (if there is any at all) science in religious teachings?
    off subject

    We had a foreign exchange student live with us...from Brussels,....and it was a mutual love...20 years later, we are still in touch. Visited her there and my GF lived there for 3 years also.......you have a very beautiful country and I loved Bruges! I love the song about it also by Judy Collins!

    Thank you!
    I seldom receive compliments about my country, thus it is nice to see that you have enjoyed what we offer.
    You are welcome!

    I forgot the moules!! *laughing* Yes. My daughter is living and working in Zurich, and my family is from Slovenia.

    Grand Place is AWESOME!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    Anyway; back to the thread....

    Just taking an educated guess, I'd say it was to keep control over society. The three main Abrahamic religions served as good moral guides for many people, as well. They provided order, at times of uncertainty. People by nature, also like to belong to something...to feel accepted. Community worship is very popular for that very reason. How many Christian churches today, have several groups/activities for their congregations to take part in? Many. Religion becomes a way of life for many people.

    Spot on, I'd say.


    Being spiritual is one thing, but Religion is a method for a few intelligent, but weak, people to control the 'less intelligent masses' and gain power, influence, and money. (As opposed to strong warlike folk doing so with their muscles and aggression). Just look at the way the officials all have elaborate costumes. Did "God" tell them to dress like that? No. So why do they do so? It's just to make themselves seem important and superior. The genius of it is that they encourage belief in a "God", so the priests, vicars etc. are not seen to be the ones manipulating the 'poor unintelligent peasants', but actually they are. They also convince the congregations that absence of proof of a "God" is not a reason to disbelieve, and they push the idea of 'faith', which is unconditional belief without any evidence. They also use and manipulate man's inbuilt tribal instincts to belong to a large group of like-minded people.

    Religious services are really public hypnotism sessions - repeating mantra's, chanting, signing, praying - it's all designed to control peoples' minds.

    Some of religion is practical - encouraging clean living, food safety, and certain moral standards, which did help stabilise society. However, for example, masturbation is seen as sinful. Why? Because they want men to create more babies - potential believers to join the church - rather than "waste" sperm. Look at all the fuss over gay people. If religion was real, then "God" created everyone. So why would religion then say that being gay was sinful? It simply doesn't add up.

    Why do some religions dictate what body/facial hair is allowed to be grown and what must be removed?? Or what sort of clothing one is allowed to wear? What has body or facial hair or clothing got to do with one's belief or ability to be part of a congregation? None. It is purely to do with showing everyone else that your tribe is bigger than theirs.

    But it's really all a gravy train - look at how expensive the magnificent Churches, Palaces, and Cathedrals are - all built with money taken from the population. Look at the Priests and Vicar's residences. They are living in luxury, some of them with servants, while the 'poor peasants' who fund it all are living in poverty.


    Another type of intelligent person - the scientist - is gradually gaining ground; Discovering and proving how the world and the Universe works.



    Amen. (Or not!)


    OB
    Last edited by One beer; August 23rd, 2013 at 06:14 AM.
    HB3l1, Dywyddyr, astromark and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by One beer View Post
    Religion is a method for a few intelligent, but weak, people to control the 'less intelligent masses' and gain power and influence... look at how expensive the magnificent Churches and Palaces are - all built with money taken from the population. Look at the Priests and Vicar's residences. They are living in luxury, some of them with servants, while the poor 'peasants' who fund it all are living in poverty.
    Remember also the slave trade, encouraged by people who regarded themselves as true Christians.
    John Newton : Born in London he became active in the slave trade. He is best known for composing the hymn 'Amazing Grace'. How many people of the African-American community who piously sing it, know the history of the man who wrote it?
    Caribbean Slave Plantations : Many of these establishments were owned by the Anglican Church which was culpable in the slave trade.
    Cities of Bath, Bristol and Liverpool : Many prestigious buildings in these places were funded by the slave trade where again the Anglican Church and its priests were enthusiastic investors.

    Okay, so this is all in the past, and we're all equal now, black and white. So the churches look for other means to make money, like investing in loan shark companies which exploit the poorer and more vulnerable people in society. I've long given up on trusting them to practice what they preach.
    As lines go from one particular hymn: 'The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly...'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Senior MoonCanvas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by One beer
    Being spiritual is one thing, but Religion is a method for a few intelligent, but weak, people to control the 'less intelligent masses' and gain power, influence, and money.
    These people used to be among the smartest population, and now they're relics of the old world. Science concludes that everyone is at least a 50th cousin of everybody else, so it probably took very little time for this massive change. Now scientists are the smartest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    Because religion isn't conducive to scientific study. Science requires a theory to be falsifiable. If you define your idea of 'god' as a supreme being capable of altering reality at will, then you can't measure that. God would simply stop you. However this also makes it impossible to prove the non-existence of god, and thus atheism is as much a religion as anything else. If you believe it fine, but it's a faith, because you can't prove god doesn't exist; thus only agnosticism is not a faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    and thus atheism is as much a religion as anything else
    No.
    Atheism is, au fond, a lack of belief.
    Which can shade into a "belief of non-existence".
    And that belief would be supported by weight of probabilities.
    (Additionally there's also this:

    Which tends NOT to be the attitude of theists).

    thus only agnosticism is not a faith.
    You're confused.
    Agnosticism is a stance on what we can know about god, not a view on "his" existence or not.
    One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    Ah yes true, but my point was that taken to it's furthest conclusion god [a god that can change our reality at will] is fundamentally incapable of being proved or disproved by science. Thus to believe anything about that existence is a form of faith, because any answer at all [barring I suppose god showing themselves, but without being god yourself how would know it's 'the' god and not just 'a' god...] is not within the realm of real science.
    The science says; that question is out of our range.
    Therefore anyone with an opinion on said existence is exhibiting a form of faith, or at least bad science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Therefore anyone with an opinion on said existence is exhibiting a form of faith, or at least bad science.
    You're ignoring weight of probabilities again.
    Lack of evidence where there should be evidence.
    Lack of evidence despite 2,000 years+ of claims.
    Lack of evidence despite repeated attempts to find that evidence.

    In the end it boils down to "your claim has failed, it's therefore logical to assume that there are no grounds for that claim".
    Invisible pink unicorn in my garage territory.
    Is it faith to believe there isn't one?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Religion is not about seeing the universe as it actually is, but to see it as one wants it to be. Therefore religion will always exist in humanity. It's not healthy for a biological entity to know what the universe is; completely indifferent with us. So people will ignore it and make up some random nonsense just to survive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Religion is not about seeing the universe as it actually is, but to see it as one wants it to be. Therefore religion will always exist in humanity. It's not healthy for a biological entity to know what the universe is; completely indifferent with us. So people will ignore it and make up some random nonsense just to survive.
    Thanks for the ideas!! Food for thought!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Ah yes true, but my point was that taken to it's furthest conclusion god [a god that can change our reality at will] is fundamentally incapable of being proved or disproved by science. Thus to believe anything about that existence is a form of faith, because any answer at all [barring I suppose god showing themselves, but without being god yourself how would know it's 'the' god and not just 'a' god...] is not within the realm of real science.
    The science says; that question is out of our range.
    Therefore anyone with an opinion on said existence is exhibiting a form of faith, or at least bad science.
    Do you believe in Zeus, Medusa, Unicorns or Kali? If not, would you say that is an un-scientific belief? I am an atheist, because, upon weighing the evidence, it has become clear to me that the God of the Bible is about as likely as these options. Which is to say, very unlikely indeed. Saying that we can know almost nothing for sure is one thing, but pragmatically one has to have some sort of a sliding scale of probability. When the probability of something being true becomes as unlikely as the existence of the God of the Bible, fairies, Ra and Poseidon is, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume non-existence. In fact, I wholeheartedly risk spending an eternity in hell, because the probability is so small.

    I have to stress though that the specific definition of the god in question is very important in this. Some people might call an alien being that used an advanced technology to create our universe (in which case it would not be the lone one), seeded life on this planet and directly interacts with humanity and maybe even harvests our consciousnesses as we die to live in some virtual utopia, "God", in which case it would be more likely to exist imo, if still a vanishing probability.

    So I suppose my atheism is based on a "leap of faith" of some sort, but that is very far removed from calling it a belief system or a religion. Is logic a religion?


    PS:CEngelbrecht, are you originally from the Southern tip of Africa by any chance?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Ah yes true, but my point was that taken to it's furthest conclusion god [a god that can change our reality at will] is fundamentally incapable of being proved or disproved by science. Thus to believe anything about that existence is a form of faith, because any answer at all [barring I suppose god showing themselves, but without being god yourself how would know it's 'the' god and not just 'a' god...] is not within the realm of real science.
    The science says; that question is out of our range.
    Therefore anyone with an opinion on said existence is exhibiting a form of faith, or at least bad science.
    Do you believe in Zeus, Medusa, Unicorns or Kali? If not, would you say that is an un-scientific belief? I am an atheist, because, upon weighing the evidence, it has become clear to me that the God of the Bible is about as likely as these options. Which is to say, very unlikely indeed. Saying that we can know almost nothing for sure is one thing, but pragmatically one has to have some sort of a sliding scale of probability. When the probability of something being true becomes as unlikely as the existence of the God of the Bible, fairies, Ra and Poseidon is, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume non-existence. In fact, I wholeheartedly risk spending an eternity in hell, because the probability is so small.

    I have to stress though that the specific definition of the god in question is very important in this. Some people might call an alien being that used an advanced technology to create our universe (in which case it would not be the lone one), seeded life on this planet and directly interacts with humanity and maybe even harvests our consciousnesses as we die to live in some virtual utopia, "God", in which case it would be more likely to exist imo, if still a vanishing probability.

    So I suppose my atheism is based on a "leap of faith" of some sort, but that is very far removed from calling it a belief system or a religion. Is logic a religion?


    PS:CEngelbrecht, are you originally from the Southern tip of Africa by any chance?
    I do not know if I agree with you.

    If you have a strong belief....i.e. there is no god...isn't that in a sense a belief?

    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaB01 View Post
    It isn't hard. It's hard to convince religious people, they don't want to hear.
    That goes for every person.

    People don't wish to hear what they don't wish to hear because they frankly don't wish to hear!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    Just take another look at what you wrote...
    You're saying "I don't believe" is a statement of belief?

    Try this:
    "I do not believe that X exists" is an absence of belief in X.
    "I believe that X does not exist" is a belief in the absence of X.

    The two statements are neither semantically nor logically equivalent, although many people take them to be.
    pavlos and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    and thus atheism is as much a religion as anything else
    No.
    Atheism is, au fond, a lack of belief.
    Calling it a "lack of belief" is kind of double talk.

    The question is: "Who is in charge of the universe?"

    If you answer "I don't believe that anyone is in charge" That's not a non-statement. "Nobody" is an answer to the question.

    A Christian theist could just as easily answer "I do not believe that the man in charge isn't Jesus Christ."

    An agnostic might simply say "I don't know who is in charge." or "I hold no opinion on the matter.", and they would have a position that doesn't require evidence. Their hypothesis is the null hypothesis.



    Which can shade into a "belief of non-existence".
    And that belief would be supported by weight of probabilities.
    (Additionally there's also this:

    Which tends NOT to be the attitude of theists).
    Good point. Most theists don't care what the evidence is. Unless belief becomes absolutely impossible they will never abandon their god.

    I suspect that most Atheists would abandon their atheistic stance if presented with any reasonable amount of evidence. At least if it's real evidence and not arguments from incredulity or stuff like that.


    thus only agnosticism is not a faith.
    You're confused.
    Agnosticism is a stance on what we can know about god, not a view on "his" existence or not.
    One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
    Ok then..... that means we have a belief status that has no name.

    Those who simply hold no opinion because no evidence has emerged, but who consider it possible that evidence might emerge someday are now left without a category. Poor guys.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    Just take another look at what you wrote...
    You're saying "I don't believe" is a statement of belief?

    Try this:
    "I do not believe that X exists" is an absence of belief in X.
    "I believe that X does not exist" is a belief in the absence of X.

    The two statements are neither semantically nor logically equivalent, although many people take them to be.

    If an atheist really takes the first position, and it is to really mean something different from the second one, then they must make separate statements for each possible answer to the question.

    "I do not believe that Jesus exists"
    "I do not believe that Jaweh exists"
    "I do not believe that Allah exists"
    "I do not believe that Krishna exists"
    "I do not believe that Odin exists"
    "I do not believe that Zeus exists"

    .... etc.

    and then they must state that they are open to all possibilities not on that list. (Meaning they are agnostic with exceptions.)

    However, they would still be claiming to have ruled out those possibilities, or at least to have cast substantial doubt on them.

    If they say

    "I neither confirm nor deny that Jesus exists"
    "I neither confirm nor deny that Jaweh exists"
    "I neither confirm nor deny that Allah exists"
    "I neither confirm nor deny that Krishna exists"
    "I neither confirm nor deny that Odin exists"
    "I neither confirm nor deny that Zeus exists"

    Then they're not saying much. Hard to distinguish that from agnosticism. But you don't need evidence to say "I neither confirm nor deny". Then you're just hedging.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    I quite like what someone on a different forum said:
    If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
    If I can say I know there are no fairies
    If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
    Then I can say I know there is no God.
    Dywyddyr and astromark like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    I quite like what someone on a different forum said:
    If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
    If I can say I know there are no fairies
    If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
    Then I can say I know there is no God.
    Claiming there is no god is actually claiming that the universe came into existence on its own which is an empty claim, while that's not the case for the other instances (Santa.. etc) you provided. You see, its not the same. On the other hand, believing there is God is faith and not necessarily a claim. I hope you see the difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Claiming there is no god is actually claiming that the universe came into existence on its own which is an empty claim
    What?

    while that's not the case for the other instances (Santa.. etc) you provided. You see, its not the same.
    Why not?

    On the other hand, believing there is God is faith and not necessarily a claim. I hope you see the difference.
    Fine.
    But those with faith in god then tend to extend that into actual claims. And therein lies the problem.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Calling it a "lack of belief" is kind of double talk.
    No it isn't.
    It's stating quite clearly and succinctly that the claims of others are not sufficiently convincing for us to subscribe to.

    The question is: "Who is in charge of the universe?"
    If you answer "I don't believe that anyone is in charge" That's not a non-statement. "Nobody" is an answer to the question.
    Alternatively we could say "what makes you think that A) there IS anyone in charge and B) why there needs to be anyone in charge.
    It's a null question.

    An agnostic might simply say "I don't know who is in charge." or "I hold no opinion on the matter.", and they would have a position that doesn't require evidence. Their hypothesis is the null hypothesis.
    Your point being?
    With regard to theism/ atheism sticking to the null hypothesis is in itself declaring a lack of belief. Ergo - what you call "agnostic" is atheist.

    I suspect that most Atheists would abandon their atheistic stance if presented with any reasonable amount of evidence. At least if it's real evidence and not arguments from incredulity or stuff like that.
    Exactly.

    Ok then..... that means we have a belief status that has no name.
    What?

    Those who simply hold no opinion because no evidence has emerged
    Once again: if you hold no opinion then by virtue of not holding an opinion you do not believe. Therefore atheist (without god = lack of god).
    Evidence has very little to do with the belief itself.

    (Meaning they are agnostic with exceptions.)
    Meaning that, by definition, they are atheist. Because they lack belief.

    Then they're not saying much. Hard to distinguish that from agnosticism
    Except that, one more time: agnosticism is a stance what we can know about god - it's an epistemological stance.
    One can declare a belief (or lack of same) while at the same time stating "we have insufficient knowledge to justify my position but it doesn't prevent me from holding it".
    Humans belief many things, regardless, or sometimes in spite of, available knowledge.

    But you don't need evidence to say "I neither confirm nor deny".
    Of course you do.
    pavlos and astromark like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    It (and gods) is/are an unfalsifiable idea. Any time you find a contradiction, "supernatural" can be used to dismiss it.

    Just for a more entertaining way of looking at it:
    God of the Paradox - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Claiming there is no god is actually claiming that the universe came into existence on its own which is an empty claim
    No. I am saying that I don't know how the universe came into existence.
    But there is no evidence that a god was involved or that a god even exists.
    Flick Montana and astromark like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    If you have a strong belief....i.e. there is no god...isn't that in a sense a belief?

    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    I phrase it a bit differently. I do not have a belief in the existence of a god, (belief being the conviction of something sans evidence) and I can see no reason that one should exist. A god is not required for the universe to exist and function, only the laws of physics are needed, and I see no evidence of the existence of the Big Magician In The Sky.

    So it's not that I have a belief in no god, I just don't have a belief in one.
    Flick Montana and astromark like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Claiming there is no god is actually claiming that the universe came into existence on its own which is an empty claim
    No. I am saying that I don't know how the universe came into existence.
    But there is no evidence that a god was involved or that a god even exists.
    When I read the post # 121, it gave me an impression that you were positively claiming that god does not exist (because of the wrong comparisons you had referred to) so I replied the way I did.

    Different people believes in God for different reasons, but one of the most common reasons provided by the believers is that they cannot believe that universe could have created itself or Big Bang took place without a designer who designed the whole process. To which the response from nonbelievers is usually "how did this designer come into existence?" Well, just like comparing so and so to God is not a fair comparison (because of the reasons believers can provide for their belief in God), so is comparing the physical and material things to God is utterly silly. Does it make any sense to assume that God must have also come into existence at certain point in time just because we have some theories that universe which is physical might have had a beginning? How can we compare spiritual to physical while spirituality is matter of experience at the individual level? It is understandable that we believe that universe is sustained through law of physics, but how can we apply the law of physics on the Creator Himself of such laws? And if the law of physics cannot be applied on Him, then how would it be possible to prove His existence in a way we prove the existence of physical things which is merely His creation? How can one have such a silly expectation, while knowing that religion does not liken Him to His creation? For me, existence of this magnificent creation is enough of a reason to believe in Creator not to mention inability (disability?) of modern science to provide the cause.

    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Right, belief is acceptance with no reason or rationality.

    As you demonstrate.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Right, belief is acceptance with no reason or rationality.

    As you demonstrate.
    Well, as I said, the existence of the universe (which might be infinitely big) is a big enough reason for me to believe. Its impossible to give a bigger reason than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Right, belief is acceptance with no reason or rationality.

    As you demonstrate.

    Well, as I said, the existence of the universe (which might be infinitely big) is a big enough reason for me to believe. Its impossible to give a bigger reason than that.
    The universe does not need a god to exist and function. The laws of physics are perfectly adequate and sufficient.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Right, belief is acceptance with no reason or rationality.

    As you demonstrate.

    Well, as I said, the existence of the universe (which might be infinitely big) is a big enough reason for me to believe. Its impossible to give a bigger reason than that.
    The universe does not need a god to exist and function. The laws of physics are perfectly adequate and sufficient.
    They are, because they were perfectly placed in function by a Perfect Being. I see no reason to believe that the laws came into effect by themselves.

    I think one should at least leave the door open to belief in God just for sake of being humble enough to acknowledge that we as imperfect beings cannot possibly know everything through our scientific methods. We should acknowledge that we are too imperfect to comprehend the Science of God in its entirety as it has no end. I think we should keep progressing, but with this humble attitude. Just my thought. Gotta go. Bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    When I read the post # 121, it gave me an impression that you were positively claiming that god does not exist
    Except that, as I (at least) have noted: it IS possible (and rational) to claim positively that god does not exist.

    (because of the wrong comparisons you had referred to) so I replied the way I did.
    But you failed to point out why the comparisons were "wrong".

    Well, just like comparing so and so to God is not a fair comparison (because of the reasons believers can provide for their belief in God)
    Ah right.
    It's false to compare a belief in god (because the universe is here) with a belief in Santa Claus (I get presents every year that appear mysteriously over night).
    It's false to compare a belief in god (because because someone claimed he exists) with a belief in the Easter Bunny (because someone told me he exists).
    Got it.

    How can we compare spiritual to physical while spirituality is matter of experience at the individual level?
    Quite.
    On the one hand we have verifiable "reality", on the other we have personal subjective impressions.
    And we all know how reliable they are.

    not to mention inability (disability?) of modern science to provide the cause.
    So you're so arrogant and self-centred that science is required to have all the answers available in your lifetime?
    I'm sure that if scientists realised that YOU were so deserving of such an accolade they'd make a special effort.

    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    What's even simpler is that not a single argument you have made is anything other deflection, avoidance and mere-restatement of unthinking belief. Coupled with that previously-mentioned little hint of arrogance.
    You've made claims: you cannot substantiate any one of them.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    the Science of God
    There is no such thing.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    They are, because they were perfectly placed in function by a Perfect Being
    You assume that which has not been shown, and then simply choose to believe. There is no arguing with belief, because belief is devoid of reason or rationality. It's just an unfounded emotional position you choose to take because it fulfills some need you have.
    astromark and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    When I read the post # 121, it gave me an impression that you were positively claiming that god does not exist (because of the wrong comparisons you had referred to) so I replied the way I did.
    But there are conditionals to the statement: "Then I can say I know there is no God."
    "If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus...If I can say I know there are no fairies...If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts"

    The quote expands like this:
    There is no evidence that Santa Claus exists. And everyone (including theists) are happy to say "I know that there is no Santa Claus".
    There is no evidence that fairies exist. And everyone (including theists) are happy to say "I know that there are no Fairies".
    There is no evidence that moon bases exist. And everyone (including theists) are happy to say "I know that there are no moon bases".

    And there is no evidence that god exists. And everyone (but not theists) are happy to say "I know that there is no god".

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Different people believes in God for different reasons, but one of the most common reasons provided by the believers is that they cannot believe that universe could have created itself or Big Bang took place without a designer who designed the whole process.
    Yes. That would be an argument from incredulity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    To which the response from nonbelievers is usually "how did this designer come into existence?"
    No. That would be the response to the theists' claim that "Everything must be created by something".

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Well, just like comparing so and so to God is not a fair comparison (because of the reasons believers can provide for their belief in God), so is comparing the physical and material things to God is utterly silly.
    What are those reasons and how do they make comparisons to god unfair?

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science...
    Correct.
    There is no evidence that god exists.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    They are, because they were perfectly placed in function by a Perfect Being
    You assume that which has not been shown, and then simply choose to believe. There is no arguing with belief, because belief is devoid of reason or rationality. It's just an unfounded emotional position you choose to take because it fulfills some need you have.
    I "choose" to believe in God because if I choose not to "choose" to believe then I would feel like I am lying to myself. I think most of the believers will say the same thing. To me it sounds perfectly rational to not to lie to myself by "choosing" to believe. And yes, I do feel a need to not to lie to myself, so you were right about the need of mine. There is no way for me to acknowledge the existence of creation and at the same time deny the existence of the Creator and then give the reason "Santa does not exist so the Creator of universe must also not exist".

    I am not accusing your or anyone else here of lying, but have only stated how I would feel if I "choose" to not to believe in God, overlooking all His signs present everywhere, through simply claiming and believing "everything that exists, happened through accidents and coincidences", because such a belief sounds irrational to me and I think most of the theists would say the same thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    I "choose" to believe in God because if I choose not to "choose" to believe then I would feel like I am lying to myself. I think most of the believers will say the same thing. To me it sounds perfectly rational to not to lie to myself by "choosing" to believe. And yes, I do feel a need to not to lie to myself, so you were right about the need of mine.
    Oh dear, you really are confused aren't you?
    That feeling about "not lying to yourself" is founded entirely on your belief.
    If you ever come round to not believing then exactly the same argument applies.
    And, for the record, you appear to accusing non-believers of lying to themselves 1.

    There is no way for me to acknowledge the existence of creation and at the same time deny the existence of the Creator and then give the reason "Santa does not exist so the Creator of universe must also not exist".
    And you STILL haven't given any explanation of why that argument is wrong.

    I am not accusing your or anyone else here of lying, but have only stated how I would feel if I "choose" to not to believe in God
    Nope.
    If you became a non-believer then you would consider yourself as being true to yourself at the time.

    overlooking all His signs present everywhere
    You mean "not ascribing unsupported explanations to everyday phenomena".

    through simply claiming and believing "everything that exists, happened through accidents and coincidences", because such a belief sounds irrational to me and I think most of the theists would say the same thing.
    Yeah well... religion and holding unsupported beliefs isn't exactly rational.


    1 This too is not unusual. Believers tend to hold the (unsupported) belief that belief is a necessity for humans and that anyone who declares non-belief is lying, either to themselves or to everyone else.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Ah yes true, but my point was that taken to it's furthest conclusion god [a god that can change our reality at will] is fundamentally incapable of being proved or disproved by science. Thus to believe anything about that existence is a form of faith, because any answer at all [barring I suppose god showing themselves, but without being god yourself how would know it's 'the' god and not just 'a' god...] is not within the realm of real science.
    The science says; that question is out of our range.
    Therefore anyone with an opinion on said existence is exhibiting a form of faith, or at least bad science.
    Do you believe in Zeus, Medusa, Unicorns or Kali? If not, would you say that is an un-scientific belief? I am an atheist, because, upon weighing the evidence, it has become clear to me that the God of the Bible is about as likely as these options. Which is to say, very unlikely indeed. Saying that we can know almost nothing for sure is one thing, but pragmatically one has to have some sort of a sliding scale of probability. When the probability of something being true becomes as unlikely as the existence of the God of the Bible, fairies, Ra and Poseidon is, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume non-existence. In fact, I wholeheartedly risk spending an eternity in hell, because the probability is so small.

    I have to stress though that the specific definition of the god in question is very important in this. Some people might call an alien being that used an advanced technology to create our universe (in which case it would not be the lone one), seeded life on this planet and directly interacts with humanity and maybe even harvests our consciousnesses as we die to live in some virtual utopia, "God", in which case it would be more likely to exist imo, if still a vanishing probability.

    So I suppose my atheism is based on a "leap of faith" of some sort, but that is very far removed from calling it a belief system or a religion. Is logic a religion?


    PS:CEngelbrecht, are you originally from the Southern tip of Africa by any chance?
    I do not know if I agree with you.

    If you have a strong belief....i.e. there is no god...isn't that in a sense a belief?

    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    I'd agree it is a belief, but it is not a belief system or religion, as was claimed. By me saying I am an atheist, all you know for sure is that I have no belief in the existence of the God of the Bible (generally speaking), but you can't really infer anything else about what I believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
    Just take another look at what you wrote...
    You're saying "I don't believe" is a statement of belief?

    Try this:
    "I do not believe that X exists" is an absence of belief in X.
    "I believe that X does not exist" is a belief in the absence of X.

    The two statements are neither semantically nor logically equivalent, although many people take them to be
    It still comes down to the same thing though, no? I agree with kojax on this. Saying "I have no belief that X exists" is still a statement of belief referring to the existence of X.

    Some fundies might go "Aha!" to this, but that wouldn't make much sense. All we "know" are beliefs bolstered by how we have processed the information about the world around us since birth (at least). That goes for everybody.
    babe likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It still comes down to the same thing though, no? I agree with kojax on this. Saying "I have no belief that X exists" is still a statement of belief referring to the existence of X.
    No.
    It may be a statement about the belief, but it's not a statement of belief.
    Not (believe P) isn't the same as Believe (not P).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    (belief being the conviction of something sans evidence)
    Not sure I agree with that. Isn't that the definition of "faith"? Even that is problematic though. For Faithfulbeliever, his faith originates out of what to him is evidence, i.e. he doesn't believe the universe could have come about by it's own accord.

    Having said that though....

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    When I read the post # 121, it gave me an impression that you were positively claiming that god does not exist (because of the wrong comparisons you had referred to) so I replied the way I did.

    Different people believes in God for different reasons, but one of the most common reasons provided by the believers is that they cannot believe that universe could have created itself or Big Bang took place without a designer who designed the whole process. To which the response from nonbelievers is usually "how did this designer come into existence?" Well, just like comparing so and so to God is not a fair comparison (because of the reasons believers can provide for their belief in God), so is comparing the physical and material things to God is utterly silly. Does it make any sense to assume that God must have also come into existence at certain point in time just because we have some theories that universe which is physical might have had a beginning? How can we compare spiritual to physical while spirituality is matter of experience at the individual level? It is understandable that we believe that universe is sustained through law of physics, but how can we apply the law of physics on the Creator Himself of such laws? And if the law of physics cannot be applied on Him, then how would it be possible to prove His existence in a way we prove the existence of physical things which is merely His creation? How can one have such a silly expectation, while knowing that religion does not liken Him to His creation? For me, existence of this magnificent creation is enough of a reason to believe in Creator not to mention inability (disability?) of modern science to provide the cause.

    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Can you at least recognise that your faith stems from personal incredulity and wishful thinking? Wouldn't you say an all-powerful God is a rather large assumption to make based on simple ignorance? Do you understand why the "God of the gaps" argument is a very poor one?

    Think about what you are doing. Science doesn't yet have all the answers, perhaps it never will, but you are severely slippery sloping that to "some things are just impossible through any possible laws of science". AND then you invent a being capable of anything at all as an explanation to that and on top of that, you ascribe traits to this being that'll take care of anything else you might need, as long as it can't be directly observed. And then make it a GOOD thing, according to this being, that you believe things about this being other have dreamt up before you without question (faith like a child and all that).

    If you are capable of really looking objectively at all of this, then it becomes painfully clear that people have created an elaborate fantasy world where anything is possible because this being can do anything at all that might be required of it. And when you look at the vast plethora of belief systems out there, that is exactly what you see. That is why the Bible is so inconsistent throughout and have large parts that are completely abhorrent, even to the faithful.

    You said it yourself: you believe in God because you need to. Are you afraid of considering what a world without a God would be like? What that would mean for us? Because I can tell you, from my perspective, nothing is lost, only gained.
    pavlos and astromark like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It still comes down to the same thing though, no? I agree with kojax on this. Saying "I have no belief that X exists" is still a statement of belief referring to the existence of X.
    No.
    It may be a statement about the belief, but it's not a statement of belief.
    Not (believe P) isn't the same as Believe (not P).
    Santa. Do you have no belief in his existence, or do you believe he doesn't exist?

    What I am trying to say is, "belief" is what you hold true. So how is saying "I believe Dame Edna is a man" not the same as "I have no belief that Dame Edna is a woman"? Either way, you are expressing a belief, i.e. expressing what you hold as true.

    Don't know if I am being thick (distinct possibility), but I just don't see the difference.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    What I am trying to say is, "belief" is what you hold true. So how is saying "I believe Dame Edna is a man" not the same as "I have no belief that Dame Edna is a woman"? Either way, you are expressing a belief, i.e. expressing what you hold as true.
    Don't know if I am being thick (distinct possibility), but I just don't see the difference.
    At one end of the scale "weak atheism" it's merely "I don't accept your argument that god exists - but I'm open to the possibility" i.e. no conviction either way. At the far end - "strong atheism" it's "god does NOT exist".
    As a personal example if someone asked if I believed (er, random name here) Maradonna is/ was the greatest footballer that ever lived then I would have the same answer - "I don't believe that because I haven't heard any convincing argument, but at the same time, I also don't believe he's not (assuming that there is a "greatest footballer") because I don't know enough about football to come up with an alternative".
    I simply don't have anywhere near enough information to form an opinion.

    In fact I'm probably far closer to ignosticism - except when arguing with theists on the internet, simply because the vast majority that turn up have already got some particular definition in mind.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I try to stay away from the word 'believe'. I don't think there is a God. My reasons for thinking there is no such entity are the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity. The universe's laws of physics are all that are necessary and sufficient for it's existence and function. To postulate a supernatural entity which operates outside those laws is an unnecessary complication, which fulfills no conditions and answers no questions.
    astromark and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I try to stay away from the word 'believe'. I don't think there is a God. My reasons for thinking there is no such entity are the lack of evidence and the lack of necessity. The universe's laws of physics are all that are necessary and sufficient for it's existence and function. To postulate a supernatural entity which operates outside those laws is an unnecessary complication, which fulfills no conditions and answers no questions.
    More than an unnecessary complication, the whole concept of "supernatural" doesn't make any logical sense to me. To me "natural" is the same thing as "real".

    What better way to beat all the other god than to make yours being able to do anything it wants?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    (belief being the conviction of something sans evidence)
    Not sure I agree with that. Isn't that the definition of "faith"? Even that is problematic though. For Faithfulbeliever, his faith originates out of what to him is evidence, i.e. he doesn't believe the universe could have come about by it's own accord.

    Having said that though....

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    When I read the post # 121, it gave me an impression that you were positively claiming that god does not exist (because of the wrong comparisons you had referred to) so I replied the way I did.

    Different people believes in God for different reasons, but one of the most common reasons provided by the believers is that they cannot believe that universe could have created itself or Big Bang took place without a designer who designed the whole process. To which the response from nonbelievers is usually "how did this designer come into existence?" Well, just like comparing so and so to God is not a fair comparison (because of the reasons believers can provide for their belief in God), so is comparing the physical and material things to God is utterly silly. Does it make any sense to assume that God must have also come into existence at certain point in time just because we have some theories that universe which is physical might have had a beginning? How can we compare spiritual to physical while spirituality is matter of experience at the individual level? It is understandable that we believe that universe is sustained through law of physics, but how can we apply the law of physics on the Creator Himself of such laws? And if the law of physics cannot be applied on Him, then how would it be possible to prove His existence in a way we prove the existence of physical things which is merely His creation? How can one have such a silly expectation, while knowing that religion does not liken Him to His creation? For me, existence of this magnificent creation is enough of a reason to believe in Creator not to mention inability (disability?) of modern science to provide the cause.

    It is really simple, God is beyond the reaches of modern science and if one asks for scientific evidence for existence of God, it only means that he/she has no idea about the concept of God.
    Can you at least recognise that your faith stems from personal incredulity and wishful thinking? Wouldn't you say an all-powerful God is a rather large assumption to make based on simple ignorance? Do you understand why the "God of the gaps" argument is a very poor one?

    Think about what you are doing. Science doesn't yet have all the answers, perhaps it never will, but you are severely slippery sloping that to "some things are just impossible through any possible laws of science". AND then you invent a being capable of anything at all as an explanation to that and on top of that, you ascribe traits to this being that'll take care of anything else you might need, as long as it can't be directly observed. And then make it a GOOD thing, according to this being, that you believe things about this being other have dreamt up before you without question (faith like a child and all that).

    If you are capable of really looking objectively at all of this, then it becomes painfully clear that people have created an elaborate fantasy world where anything is possible because this being can do anything at all that might be required of it. And when you look at the vast plethora of belief systems out there, that is exactly what you see. That is why the Bible is so inconsistent throughout and have large parts that are completely abhorrent, even to the faithful.

    You said it yourself: you believe in God because you need to. Are you afraid of considering what a world without a God would be like? What that would mean for us? Because I can tell you, from my perspective, nothing is lost, only gained.
    Its not like I have never questioned my beliefs, I often do that and sometimes do change my beliefs because sometimes its possible to hold a belief on some assumptions which later prove to be wrong. When it comes to belief in God, I do not base my belief on mere assumptions, but this belief is based on Faith which in turn sprouts from within. I had said I believe in God because of a need to not to feel like I was lying to myself. The secondary reason is that when I see the world around me, it conforms to my belief in God, hence I often bring it up when discussing this matter. Many people acknowledge that modern science cannot provide an answer to every question and yet shut down the window for the possibility of a Being which is beyond man's comprehension, which I think is arrogance. Many times people uses Santa, pink unicorns etc as examples to deny the existence of God, while those things are not even comparable to God, as believers believes in God as Creator of universe which we all know exists while there is no reason whatsoever to believe in those other things used as examples.

    Believers do not invent God for their convenience, but believes in God because they find the existence of God convincing. They find it convincing because Faith in God is more than a belief which is based on some assumptions. For example, a person is convinced that he exists, he does not need a proof to convince himself that he exists. Others may only believe that he exists when they see the signs of his existence but for himself the feeling of him being existent "I am" is enough for him to believe in it. Similarly, the feeling of existence of God is enough for any believer to believe in God, but when they try to prove the existence of God to others, they often use signs of God like the universe itself make their point. I don't I am ever able to express myself clearly on this matter, but I sometimes attempt to.

    About the scriptures that I have read, I can tell you they are brilliantly composed. Its like they were meant to fit in all times even though they were revealed in a particular era, because they are open to wide range of interpretations, be it Gita, Bible or Quran. People sometimes makes a mistake of taking everything that's written literally and not even attempt to understand the deeper meanings of it and then see problems in it. It only takes an open mind to realise this fact. I don't even need to attribute to God things such as "this being can do anything"(though I believe He can) and I do not even need to fantasise a place where anything is possible to believe in God. The inner conviction "God Is" is much more convincing to me than the inner feeling "I am" and that's that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    How incredibly sad it is to think that this magnificent universe was created by an entity just so I can be a good boy. I can think of a million other reasons why it shouldn't have happened that way and yet, despite of all the wonders within it, all the awe inspiring beauty and mystery, the creator is concerned about my behavior. I just can't believe a God would go to such great lengths to produce such incredible genuine magic just to throw me into a fiery lake forever. I'll never understand the logic but if God did it then it must be OK.
    seagypsy likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Its not like I have never questioned my beliefs
    Good, but largely irrelevant since we're talking specifically about belief in god.
    How often do you actually question (as opposed to paying lip service to the statement)?

    When it comes to belief in God, I do not base my belief on mere assumptions
    Good.
    But...

    I had said I believe in God because of a need to not to feel like I was lying to myself.
    Which is, as I have shown, a feeling predicated on the belief. In other words it's no more solid than an assumption.

    The secondary reason is that when I see the world around me, it conforms to my belief in God
    Which is ANOTHER assumption.

    yet shut down the window for the possibility of a Being which is beyond man's comprehension
    How many times have you seen the phrase "lack of evidence" written on this forum?
    Do you seriously think that if evidence were presented those atheists present wouldn't change their minds? I.e. the possibility has NOT been shut down.

    which I think is arrogance
    But it's not arrogance to claim that you know the answer?
    Intriguing...

    Many times people uses Santa, pink unicorns etc as examples to deny the existence of God, while those things are not even comparable to God, as believers believes in God as Creator of universe which we all know exists while there is no reason whatsoever to believe in those other things used as examples.
    And you STILL haven't explained why they're not equivalent to god in this argument.
    I suspect, strongly, that your argument is unspoken largely because it follows the lines of "Well god is... god" and that's the sum of your objection.
    IOW you're not arguing from logic but a belief you refuse to address rationally 1.

    Believers do not invent God for their convenience
    Correct. They accept someone elses's invention.

    They find it convincing because Faith in God is more than a belief which is based on some assumptions
    Wrong.

    For example, a person is convinced that he exists, he does not need a proof to convince himself that he exists.
    Oh okay, you got me. It's not based on assumptions. It's apparently based on bugger all.

    Others may only believe that he exists when they see the signs of his existence
    In other words: assumption that what is seen is "evidence".

    but for himself the feeling of him being existent "I am" is enough for him to believe in it
    Huh?
    I exist therefore god does?

    Similarly, the feeling of existence of God is enough for any believer to believe in God
    So we've shifted away from assumption to "feelings"?
    How reliable!

    but when they try to prove the existence of God to others, they often use signs of God like the universe itself make their point.
    I.e. the assumption that god exists and created the universe leads to the assumption that the existence of the universe means god exists.

    About the scriptures that I have read, I can tell you they are brilliantly composed
    Apart from the inconsistencies, self-contradictions and actual inaccuracies you mean?

    because they are open to wide range of interpretations
    Yeah. Personally I'd prefer flat irrefutable statements, rather than something that can be, and is, interpreted to mean whatever is being claimed by the interpreter at any given time.

    It only takes an open mind to realise this fact.
    Wait, you're saying it takes an "open mind" to read whatever your preconceived notions want it to mean? How does that work?

    The inner conviction "God Is" is much more convincing to me than the inner feeling "I am" and that's that!
    In other words it's an assumption...

    1 And yes, before anyone jumps in, it is possible to hold an irrational belief and still examine that belief rationally. But it's bloody difficult!
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; August 26th, 2013 at 10:39 PM.
    RedPanda likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    The inner conviction "God Is" is much more convincing to me than the inner feeling "I am" and that's that!
    This is an argument which doesn't really happen. Belief in god is belief. It is not subject to reason or rationality, only to emotion. You can't counter emotion with reason.

    This isn't an argument or discussion, it's simply a restating of FFB's feeling.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    Just take another look at what you wrote...
    You're saying "I don't believe" is a statement of belief?

    Try this:
    "I do not believe that X exists" is an absence of belief in X.
    "I believe that X does not exist" is a belief in the absence of X.

    The two statements are neither semantically nor logically equivalent, although many people take them to be.
    Don't know if I agree with you on this one, Sir Duck.

    If you say you don't believe in something isn't that making a statement of what you believe (or not in)
    I believe in brushing my teeth.
    I don't believe in brushing my teeth.

    Is that not making a statement of your "belief" about brushing your teeth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    If you have a strong belief....i.e. there is no god...isn't that in a sense a belief?

    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    I phrase it a bit differently. I do not have a belief in the existence of a god, (belief being the conviction of something sans evidence) and I can see no reason that one should exist. A god is not required for the universe to exist and function, only the laws of physics are needed, and I see no evidence of the existence of the Big Magician In The Sky.

    So it's not that I have a belief in no god, I just don't have a belief in one.
    Fair enough Sir AlexG!

    I understand your point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It still comes down to the same thing though, no? I agree with kojax on this. Saying "I have no belief that X exists" is still a statement of belief referring to the existence of X.
    No.
    It may be a statement about the belief, but it's not a statement of belief.
    Not (believe P) isn't the same as Believe (not P).
    Santa. Do you have no belief in his existence, or do you believe he doesn't exist?

    What I am trying to say is, "belief" is what you hold true. So how is saying "I believe Dame Edna is a man" not the same as "I have no belief that Dame Edna is a woman"? Either way, you are expressing a belief, i.e. expressing what you hold as true.

    Don't know if I am being thick (distinct possibility), but I just don't see the difference.
    I think you are mixing knowledge with belief. I know there is no possibility of God/Gods, Devil/Demons, Orks/Fairies, Santa/Tooth fairy, ever existing, thus I have no belief in them. (I lack belief in them).

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    The secondary reason is that when I see the world around me, it conforms to my belief in God
    This is called Confirmation Bias, all too common in the theist.
    Last edited by pavlos; August 27th, 2013 at 02:52 AM. Reason: addendum
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    The following is unfair and true.. This Universe does not require a god. Some people do. They are wrong.
    Why are they wrong ? Because they have gotten to this point without one and failed to notice.
    ~ That I reject the existence of any god is not a statement of faith. Nor is it a belief.
    I have science and the scientific method to back my statement up. Can you lay claim to knowledge of god or gods.
    Not faith based belief structures of indoctrinated fear driven drivel... I invite your truths.. please.
    pavlos and seagypsy like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Is that not making a statement of your "belief" about brushing your teeth?
    How can stating "I don't hold a belief" be a statement of belief?
    I lack belief.

    To believe in god is an "active" thing - i.e. one must profess that belief, even if it's only internally.
    To believe god does not exist is also an "active" thing.
    To not believe is passive: there is no belief held or professed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    My example of the difference between belief and lack of belief.

    If you believe something is on sale. then you have confidence it is on sale. Even if you have either no reason, or very weak evidence (got a feeling or heard a rumor repeated several times) to justify that belief, ie no real evidence.

    If you do not believe it is on sale, you are expressing a lack of evidence that it is on sale. That you have no reason to have confidence that it is on sale. However if someone brings to you an advertisement from the local paper stating that the thing in question is indeed on sale, then you know it is on sale and accept it as a fact.

    If you believe it is on sale and someone points out to you that it is not on sale but because you believe it is on sale, you ignore their statements because they cannot prove it. Shops don't send out ads telling you what is not on sale. So proving that it is not on sale is impossible without going to the shop directly and showing the believer.

    If you believe it is not on sale without seeing any ads saying so then you simply believe that it is not on sale and are confident that it is not on sale. But if you have not even researched then your belief is based on ignorance.

    Belief in general is based on ignorance. If you have (testable falsifiable) evidence for what you hold to be true then it is called knowledge not belief.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Calling it a "lack of belief" is kind of double talk.
    No it isn't.
    It's stating quite clearly and succinctly that the claims of others are not sufficiently convincing for us to subscribe to.

    The question is: "Who is in charge of the universe?"
    If you answer "I don't believe that anyone is in charge" That's not a non-statement. "Nobody" is an answer to the question.
    Alternatively we could say "what makes you think that A) there IS anyone in charge and B) why there needs to be anyone in charge.
    It's a null question.
    It sounds to me like you're stating that nobody is in charge and nobody needs to be in charge.

    The difference between saying "I do not believe that there is anyone in charge" vs. "I believe that there is nobody in charge" is only in where you choose to put the negative in your sentence.

    If I asked you "Who do you think is the queen of the United States of America"? And you replied that you believed that the USA didn't have a queen, that wouldn't be a statement of "non-belief". It would be a clear statement that you do not believe that the USA has a queen.

    If I asked who who the Queen of England was, on the other hand, and you stated that you believed that England had no queen, I'd want you to back that statement up with some evidence.

    It's just plain silly to confuse a negative position with a non-position.


    An agnostic might simply say "I don't know who is in charge." or "I hold no opinion on the matter.", and they would have a position that doesn't require evidence. Their hypothesis is the null hypothesis.
    Your point being?
    With regard to theism/ atheism sticking to the null hypothesis is in itself declaring a lack of belief. Ergo - what you call "agnostic" is atheist.d
    So the null hypothesis with respect to "Who is the queen of the USA"? is lack of belief that the USA has a queen?

    How about England? Is it a null hypothesis to say you don't believe England has a queen?



    Ok then..... that means we have a belief status that has no name.
    What?
    Ok, there are clearly five possible perspectives.

    1) - Belief there is a god.
    2) - Not believing there is a god. (Which I'm including to humor the people who want this belief to have special status.)
    3) - Believing there is no god.
    4) - Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god. - but allowing that evidence may later emerge to prove one way or the other.
    5) - Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god. - and not believing it is possible in principle to know one way or the other.


    #1 has the name "Theist"
    #2 has the name "Atheist"
    #3 has .... no name unfortunately.
    #4 has ... no name unfortunately.
    #5 has the name "Agnostic"



    (Meaning they are agnostic with exceptions.)
    Meaning that, by definition, they are atheist. Because they lack belief.
    Not according to the principle of deduction. If you have eliminated any possibilities, then you have a belief, because you now positively believe that the correct answer falls within a certain range.

    It's like if you asked me how hot a cup of water is, and I note that the water isn't boiling, so I tell you it's less than 100 degrees C. Maybe that's all I know, but I can definitively say it. The fact I can't tell you the exact temperature doesn't mean I hold no beliefs at all about the temperature.


    Then they're not saying much. Hard to distinguish that from agnosticism
    Except that, one more time: agnosticism is a stance what we can know about god - it's an epistemological stance.
    One can declare a belief (or lack of same) while at the same time stating "we have insufficient knowledge to justify my position but it doesn't prevent me from holding it".
    Humans belief many things, regardless, or sometimes in spite of, available knowledge.

    .... which makes the word "Agnostic" mostly useless, because most undecided people out there don't think it's impossible to decide.

    Basically it means there's no word for "moderate". You're either a theist (extremist), or an atheist (extremist).

    Or wait. Actually there is no word for someone who genuinely believes there is no god. Since Atheist supposedly only means people who are undecided, but choose to only mention one side of their indecision (the side where they doubt the presence of a god, but not the part where they doubt the absence of a god.)


    We're being forced semantically into a false dichotomy. Simply by not having words to describe the other alternatives.
    Last edited by kojax; August 27th, 2013 at 06:26 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Calling it a "lack of belief" is kind of double talk.
    No it isn't.
    It's stating quite clearly and succinctly that the claims of others are not sufficiently convincing for us to subscribe to.

    The question is: "Who is in charge of the universe?"
    If you answer "I don't believe that anyone is in charge" That's not a non-statement. "Nobody" is an answer to the question.
    Alternatively we could say "what makes you think that A) there IS anyone in charge and B) why there needs to be anyone in charge.
    It's a null question.
    It sounds to me like you're stating that nobody is in charge and nobody needs to be in charge.

    The difference between saying "I do not believe that there is anyone in charge" vs. "I believe that there is nobody in charge" is only in where you choose to put the negative in your sentence.

    If I asked you "Who do you think is the queen of the United States of America"? And you replied that you believed that the USA didn't have a queen, that wouldn't be a statement of "non-belief". It would be a clear statement that you do not believe that the USA has a queen.

    If I asked who who the Queen of England was, on the other hand, and you stated that you believed that England had no queen, I'd want you to back that statement up with some evidence.

    It's just plain silly to confuse a negative position with a non-position.


    An agnostic might simply say "I don't know who is in charge." or "I hold no opinion on the matter.", and they would have a position that doesn't require evidence. Their hypothesis is the null hypothesis.
    Your point being?
    With regard to theism/ atheism sticking to the null hypothesis is in itself declaring a lack of belief. Ergo - what you call "agnostic" is atheist.d
    So the null hypothesis with respect to "Who is the queen of the USA"? is lack of belief that the USA has a queen?

    How about England? Is it a null hypothesis to say you don't believe England has a queen?



    Ok then..... that means we have a belief status that has no name.
    What?
    Ok, there are clearly five possible perspectives.

    1) - Belief there is a god.
    2) - Not believing there is a god. (Which I'm including to humor the people who want this belief to have special status.)
    3) - Believing there is no god.
    4) - Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god. - but allowing that evidence may later emerge to prove one way or the other.
    5) - Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god. - and not believing it is possible in principle to know one way or the other.


    #1 has the name "Theist"
    #2 has the name "Atheist"
    #3 has .... no name unfortunately.
    #4 has ... no name unfortunately.
    #5 has the name "Agnostic"



    (Meaning they are agnostic with exceptions.)
    Meaning that, by definition, they are atheist. Because they lack belief.
    Not according to the principle of deduction. If you have eliminated any possibilities, then you have a belief, because you now positively believe that the correct answer falls within a certain range.

    It's like if you asked me how hot a cup of water is, and I note that the water isn't boiling, so I tell you it's less than 100 degrees C. Maybe that's all I know, but I can definitively say it. The fact I can't tell you the exact temperature doesn't mean I hold no beliefs at all about the temperature.


    Then they're not saying much. Hard to distinguish that from agnosticism
    Except that, one more time: agnosticism is a stance what we can know about god - it's an epistemological stance.
    One can declare a belief (or lack of same) while at the same time stating "we have insufficient knowledge to justify my position but it doesn't prevent me from holding it".
    Humans belief many things, regardless, or sometimes in spite of, available knowledge.

    .... which makes the word "Agnostic" mostly useless, because most undecided people out there don't think it's impossible to decide.

    Basically it means there's no word for "moderate". You're either a theist (extremist), or an atheist (extremist).

    Or wait. Actually there is no word for someone who genuinely believes there is no god. Since Atheist supposedly only means people who are undecided, but choose to only mention one side of their indecision (the side where they doubt the presence of a god, but not the part where they doubt the absence of a god.)


    We're being forced semantically into a false dichotomy. Simply by not having words to describe the other alternatives.
    1) There is no evidence that the US has a Queen. There is evidence the that England has a queen. Therefore "I don't believe that the US has a queen" is perfectly justifiable and "I don't believe England has a Queen" isn't.
    Also, the difference "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there isn't a god." isn't just a gramatical one. The first is a statement that you haven't seen enough (or any) evidence for it, or that you don't accept that claim for another reason. The second is a statement that either you have seen evidence that refutes it, or that you believe that it isn't possible for some other reason.
    2) Explained above. One has evidence, the other doesn't.
    3)
    #1 Gnostic Theist
    #2 Agnostic Athiest
    #3 Gnostic Athiest
    #4 Agnostic (disbeliever maybe? No good name)
    #5 Gnostic (Disbeliever? Also, "not believing it's possible" and "believing it's not possible" are different)
    Also, to emphasize your false dichotomy their's
    #6 Sure that a deity exists, but unsure as to the nature of said deity.
    #7 Sure that a deity exists, but not sure whether you can know anything about it. (Deist)
    #8 Sure that a deity exists, but sure that you can't know anything about it (Deist also)
    4) That's assuming we have evidence that the water exists, that the temperature can be measured, and that you have a way of at least estimating it. Also, it assumes that your scale is valid. You have a belief in all of those things just by asking said question. The same goes for religion.
    5) covered it already
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The difference between saying "I do not believe that there is anyone in charge" vs. "I believe that there is nobody in charge" is only in where you choose to put the negative in your sentence.
    No it's not.
    One more time:
    Not (Believe P) is not the same as Believe (Not P).

    Ok, there are clearly five possible perspectives.
    1) - Belief there is a god.
    2) - Not believing there is a god. (Which I'm including to humor the people who want this belief to have special status.)
    3) - Believing there is no god.
    4) - Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god. - but allowing that evidence may later emerge to prove one way or the other.
    5) - Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god. - and not believing it is possible in principle to know one way or the other.


    #1 has the name "Theist"
    #2 has the name "Atheist"
    #3 has .... no name unfortunately.
    #4 has ... no name unfortunately.
    #5 has the name "Agnostic"
    Wrong again.
    Agnostic is stance on what can be known about god (as I have repeatedly pointed out). NOT a statement of belief about god.
    Because there is no belief 3, 4 and 5 are atheism.

    Not according to the principle of deduction. If you have eliminated any possibilities, then you have a belief, because you now positively believe that the correct answer falls within a certain range.
    Also wrong.
    Posisbilities haven't been eliminated, all that's done is certain assertions aren't accepted.

    It's like if you asked me how hot a cup of water is, and I note that the water isn't boiling, so I tell you it's less than 100 degrees C. Maybe that's all I know, but I can definitively say it. The fact I can't tell you the exact temperature doesn't mean I hold no beliefs at all about the temperature.
    Oh good.
    What, specifically, did you observe with regard to god?

    .... which makes the word "Agnostic" mostly useless, because most undecided people out there don't think it's impossible to decide.
    Huh?
    Agnosticism AGAIN is a stance on what we can know about god.
    I suggest most rational people would say "Nothing".

    Basically it means there's no word for "moderate". You're either a theist (extremist), or an atheist (extremist).
    Apart from atheist you mean? Atheism shades from weak - I don't believe - to strong - I believe there is no god.

    Or wait. Actually there is no word for someone who genuinely believes there is no god. Since Atheist supposedly only means people who are undecided, but choose to only mention one side of their indecision (the side where they doubt the presence of a god, but not the part where they doubt the absence of a god.)
    Perhaps if you went back and read my posts you'd be less inclined to misrepresent what I'd actually written. At no point have I said that "Atheist only means people who are undecided" - in fact I have pointed out, more than once, that atheism covers a spectrum.

    We're being forced semantically into a false dichotomy. Simply by not having words to describe the other alternatives.
    Also wrong.

    One more time: atheism = without god.
    If you believe there isn't a god then you have no god, so you're atheist.
    If lack belief in god then you have no god, so you're atheist.

    You either believe in god or you don't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by TheUnknowable View Post
    #1 Gnostic Theist
    No, there's nothing in the given phrase "Belief there is a god" to justify adding "gnostic".
    Likewise:
    #2 Agnostic Athiest
    #3 Gnostic Athiest
    There's nothing in the original descriptions to justify "gnostic" or "agnostic".
    #4 Agnostic (disbeliever maybe? No good name)
    From the description - "Being undecided as to whether to believe there is a god" there is no belief. Therefore, atheist.
    #5 Gnostic (Disbeliever? Also, "not believing it's possible" and "believing it's not possible" are different)
    That would be agnostic atheist. Lack of belief + declaration about what can be known.
    #6 Sure that a deity exists, but unsure as to the nature of said deity.
    Theist - nothing stated about whether or not it can be known just that the believer says he doesn't know.
    #7 Sure that a deity exists, but not sure whether you can know anything about it. (Deist)
    Agnostic theist.
    #8 Sure that a deity exists, but sure that you can't know anything about it (Deist also)
    Agnostic theist.

    A deist is a theist that simply holds the position that god is present but doesn't interfere/ manifest.
    "He" essentially kick-started everything and then sat back, leaving god-given nature to carry on.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Is that not making a statement of your "belief" about brushing your teeth?
    How can stating "I don't hold a belief" be a statement of belief?
    I lack belief.

    To believe in god is an "active" thing - i.e. one must profess that belief, even if it's only internally.
    To believe god does not exist is also an "active" thing.
    To not believe is passive: there is no belief held or professed.
    Sorry, Sir Duckness.

    I did explain why I use the word. It is rather INGRAINED, in my line of work. Directors are constantly telling you that you need to make them believe....so that is how I relate. No offense intended........

    However that will cost you about 9 feathers.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If I asked you "Who do you think is the queen of the United States of America"? And you replied that you believed that the USA didn't have a queen, that wouldn't be a statement of "non-belief". It would be a clear statement that you do not believe that the USA has a queen.
    If you had asked me that question, me being a person who knows that America is a Republic, and I would say that most people know America is a Republic. Then my answer would be, "America is a Republic it doesn't have a Monarchy. Which is a statement of non-belief, (that they have no queen). It has nothing whatsoever to do with belief, but it's all to do with knowledge. This is where you err. You're mixing knowledge with belief.

    OED
    Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:
    Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information:
    astromark and babe like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    I can firmly say " For so and so reasons I do not believe computers will ever gain consciousness like human beings".
    I can as well say "For so and so reasons I believe that computers will never gain consciousness like human beings".
    While making either of the statements my only intention would be showing my belief in disbelief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    I can firmly say " For so and so reasons I do not believe computers will ever gain consciousness like human beings".
    I can as well say "For so and so reasons I believe that computers will never gain consciousness like human beings".
    While making either of the statements my only intention would be showing my belief in disbelief.
    Oh dear, wrong again.
    Statement 1 is a declaration of non-belief: I do not accept that argument.
    Statement 2, however, is actually an assertion.
    Ergo the two statements are NOT the same.

    pavlos, RedPanda, seagypsy and 2 others like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Nasty word, 'believe', far to prone to misinterpretations and deliberate twisting by religious types.

    I like the word 'think' instead'.
    seagypsy and astromark like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ So, I can say that..
    'Theists' are a ever dwindling number of people whom hold the conviction of a deity or God.
    That the number of people that hold onto a belief structures based on faith not science must as education will bring into question those religiously held belief structures.. 'A theist believes.'

    A 'agnostic' is buy far the largest group and simply because most people can and do go through life without considerations of gods or the questions of there being any. They do not care or do not know.

    A atheist has taken the logical conclusion of scientific review.. There are no gods..
    ~ and that we ALL fit into this construct somewhere.. "You think, you don't think, or you know".

    If for example you state you know there is a God. Then I would retort with a 'I know you are wrong.' and can use science to show and explain that what you think you know, you do not. That a indoctrinated belief structure has miss led you for so long that you hold it as true. As it can not be proven as so. I reject it. I am Atheist. That statement is not a belief, it's a fact.
    I have been told I have a belief that there is no gods. To which I must answer no. Mine is not a belief, it is knowledge.
    I have no doubt that to change the view of religiously held doctrines is difficult., and gaining momentum..
    As education to realities of science must push back religiously held mythologies..
    That, Piece be with you all is not a religious chant... it's a wish.
    Last edited by astromark; August 28th, 2013 at 03:33 PM.
    pavlos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    (I guess something is lost in translation because to me saying "I believe there is no God" is the same as "I dont believe there is a God", a graphic saying its different will not convince me the difference is anything other than a chimeric figment of semantic hair-splitting-o-phoria)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    (I guess something is lost in translation because to me saying "I believe there is no God" is the same as "I dont believe there is a God", a graphic saying its different will not convince me the difference is anything other than a chimeric figment of semantic hair-splitting-o-phoria)
    The first one making an assertion - you're claiming that (you believe) there is no god. It's an "active" position.
    The second is merely stating that you don't accept someone else's claim.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    10 reasons why you wouldn't want to disprove theistic religions:

    1. In some countries they would cut your head off if you try
    2. Other places might only cut your balls off or throw acid in your face for trying
    3. People wouldn't know who to thank for a plane crash survivor
    4. There would be more pedophiles roaming the streets
    5. Massive unemployment in the communion wafer sector
    6. The golf courses would be more crowded Sunday morning
    7. There'd be no more jokes about a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim walking into a bar
    8. The missionary would simply become a sexual position
    9. The sudden loss of comedic material would be devastating
    10. Images of Richard Dawkins would suddenly start appearing on dog asses and sandwiches
    KALSTER, pavlos and seagypsy like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I have stated it all ready.

    I use the word BELIEVE because it is a HUGE part of what I do. I have to be BELIEVABLE!

    Sorry if that offends anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    6. The golf courses would be more crowded Sunday morning
    Oh crap! Ok, that's it, I'll shut up about it now.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    10 reasons why you wouldn't want to disprove theistic religions:

    1. In some countries they would cut your head off if you try
    2. Other places might only cut your balls off or throw acid in your face for trying
    3. People wouldn't know who to thank for a plane crash survivor
    4. There would be more pedophiles roaming the streets
    5. Massive unemployment in the communion wafer sector
    6. The golf courses would be more crowded Sunday morning
    7. There'd be no more jokes about a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim walking into a bar
    8. The missionary would simply become a sexual position
    9. The sudden loss of comedic material would be devastating
    10. Images of Richard Dawkins would suddenly start appearing on dog asses and sandwiches
    3) the guy who designed the safety features?
    4) Until they started arresting ex-priests. Then it would go down to normal. Besides, half of those priests just can't get a woman, and they do what they can to get off. If that means young boys, then that's what they go for.
    7) There would still be Jews, just as a racial group. So any jokes about them would be racist jokes about them being stingy, good with money, or math, or some such.
    10) Doubt it. Atheism doesn't encourage insanity like religions do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    6. The golf courses would be more crowded Sunday morning
    Oh crap! Ok, that's it, I'll shut up about it now.
    I'll tell you what I discovered when I was thinking up the 10 reasons on why you wouldn't want to disprove religion, it was difficult. I learned that in comparison, there is an abundance of good reasons to disprove religion which seemed to easily dominate my thoughts.
    KALSTER and babe like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    6. The golf courses would be more crowded Sunday morning
    Oh crap! Ok, that's it, I'll shut up about it now.
    *laughing*....yeah I like playing in 3 hours.....and that would ruin my Sunday golf!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    The Creator created everything.Stars, planets,trees,and the little animals,He put an abundance of this on a little blue planet.Man created religion.Man can't make a tree,or even a seed.Man should have called his animal group fear based creation The Last Sacrifice.As religions go,I won't argue with them.After all man created them,and he thought they were good.The only religions that hold any validity from my point of view are early pagans or even some wiccan.Its the universe and nature,not the little animals,that score the most points.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    The Creator created everything.Stars, planets,trees,and the little animals,He put an abundance of this on a little blue planet.
    Unsupported claim.

    Man should have called his animal group fear based creation The Last Sacrifice.
    What?

    The only religions that hold any validity from my point of view are early pagans or even some wiccan.
    Why?

    Its the universe and nature,not the little animals,that score the most points.
    Why?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    The Creator created everything. Stars, planets,trees,and the little animals,He put an abundance of this on a little blue planet.

    Go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    Man created religion.

    That is certainly true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    Man can't make a tree,or even a seed.

    This is also true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    Man should have called his animal group fear based creation The Last Sacrifice.

    I am afraid I do not understand what you are asserting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    As religions go,I won't argue with them.After all man created them,and he thought they were good.

    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    The only religions that hold any validity from my point of view are early pagans or even some wiccan.Its the universe and nature,not the little animals,that score the most points.

    I am not going to argue about whether or not your beliefs are justified,
    as long as you comprehend that you cannot convince people who do not share your views by merely asserting things.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I think I need to make gravy for the Pot Raost. Can anyone spare a little flour?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Not but I have some fluor...
    I don't get the joke.

    {abe} Oh...his user name.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Freshman HB3l1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    85
    10. Images of Richard Dawkins would suddenly start appearing on dog asses and sandwiches
    Whenever I have a debate with religious people first they say is I quote ''one lunatic called Richard Dawkins has managed to make your thoughts messy and delusional.'' :-( I still can't understand the fact that people are not able to grasp the very basic things.

    I want to use this moment to thank myself and my evolved brain for being able to question himself, his origin, his beliefs and everything around him, for being able to observe nature and universe and for being able to find a sane purpose for his existence in this huge universe, many thanks to my furthest ancestor universe.

    I want to thank my brain for being able to destroy as it seemed back then indestructible chains that were literally limiting if not even killing my curiosity and imagination. Religion.

    I want to thank old Ionians for being able to look at the things from a different point of view, form a scientific point of view. They completely repel any explanation which involves divine and supernatural things. I want to thank Tales and his apprentice Anaximander for their scientific explorations and for their scientific fight against other people who were unable to observe their existence and cosmos without adding supernatural explanations. Unfortunately almost everything they wrote was burned duo to their 'wrong and peculiar' beliefs.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Not but I have some fluor...
    Well it kind of is like er engineering!! *L*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I don't believe there is a god to me is a statement of a belief!
    Just take another look at what you wrote...
    You're saying "I don't believe" is a statement of belief?

    Try this:
    "I do not believe that X exists" is an absence of belief in X.
    "I believe that X does not exist" is a belief in the absence of X.

    The two statements are neither semantically nor logically equivalent, although many people take them to be.
    Sir Ducky, I am quite sure I will never state this correctly! So just be a nice duck, will you? 30 feather fine....all greens and maroons..*cough*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Nasty word, 'believe', far to prone to misinterpretations and deliberate twisting by religious types.

    I like the word 'think' instead'.
    You relate to it as that, but I RELATE to it as to my JOB!

    That is to make a director BELIEVE.

    So it is a word, you will hear from me, and please take it with the background!

    I mean no disrespect!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    39
    Okay so I'm not so serious now but next time I get the opportunity to argue with a creationist I'm going to ask this: "If there's an intelligent designer, why did the designer put the male G-Spot in the rectum?" I mean, first of all, it's not the easiest place to find it. Also they will have a moral dilemma since a lot of them seems to be homophobic. So if an intelligent designer put it there "he" can't have a problem with homosexuality otherwise it's kind of weird to have it placed there? I would love to hear their argument...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by zunc View Post
    Okay so I'm not so serious now but next time I get the opportunity to argue with a creationist I'm going to ask this: "If there's an intelligent designer, why did the designer put the male G-Spot in the rectum?" I mean, first of all, it's not the easiest place to find it. Also they will have a moral dilemma since a lot of them seems to be homophobic. So if an intelligent designer put it there "he" can't have a problem with homosexuality otherwise it's kind of weird to have it placed there? I would love to hear their argument...
    Also, why did he run the sewage system through a recreational area? Every decent civil engineer knows that's not a good idea.
    astromark and zunc like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I make no claim to be expert in the subjects of bio-engineering.. but the human body can be seen as linked to all other mammals and connections of similarity can be found.. The fish has had a very different evolutionary path than I yet we have much in common.
    That the proponents of design can not or will not concede this is testament to the level of stupid one wishes to attach..
    The complex yet simple can be shown as generations of evolving species grow different..
    What works, lives.. breeds and on it goes.. But the shrinking group whom hold with a design and designer principals.. are lost for explanations other than to say a God did it... and when you ask from where did the God come from and how was he made..
    The answers just get silly. That they are simply avoiding the question by moving the goal lines..
    You can not argue with someone who does not show any willingness to view a different view than there's.
    Try telling a witness that to not take blood might be a warning regarding violent acts not blood at all. You have no show of changing a preconceived indoctrinated belief structure with logic.. They do not do logic..they can only do faith..
    Though and strong education of sciences may be the only way out of that madness that is religious belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by zunc View Post
    Okay so I'm not so serious now but next time I get the opportunity to argue with a creationist I'm going to ask this: "If there's an intelligent designer, why did the designer put the male G-Spot in the rectum?" I mean, first of all, it's not the easiest place to find it. Also they will have a moral dilemma since a lot of them seems to be homophobic. So if an intelligent designer put it there "he" can't have a problem with homosexuality otherwise it's kind of weird to have it placed there? I would love to hear their argument...
    The better question would be why can't mind find it!
    zunc likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Does entropy disprove religion?
    By ox in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 11th, 2013, 04:02 PM
  2. does existence of God disprove the Devil ?
    By pipster in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 05:53 AM
  3. Ways to disprove Christianity?
    By djakobsen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: October 10th, 2011, 09:47 PM
  4. Disprove me.
    By Robert Blandford in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 28th, 2009, 08:53 PM
  5. Comets Disprove Evolution? Please Help!
    By antaresxs in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 12:21 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •