Notices

View Poll Results: what would cause you as an atheist, to return to religion without any evidence.

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • A major trauma, in your life

    3 16.67%
  • A blow to your head

    0 0%
  • A near death experience

    0 0%
  • You see the error in your ways, regardless of finding any evidence

    0 0%
  • absolutely nothing

    15 83.33%
Results 1 to 81 of 81

Thread: A poll mainly for the atheists here.

  1. #1 A poll mainly for the atheists here. 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    given that there is no evidence, for any god, all religions are strictly faith based, what would be the reason/reasons you as an atheist would return to religion is any.

    or what would be the reason you think a atheist may become religious again.

    please let me know if there is an option missing.

    I personal can think of no reason to believe without any qualifing evidence.


    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: A poll mainly for the atheists here. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    given that there is no evidence, for any god, all religions are strictly faith based, what would be the reason/reasons you as an atheist would return to religion is any.

    or what would be the reason you think a atheist may become religious again.

    please let me know if there is an option missing.

    I personal can think of no reason to believe without any qualifing evidence.
    we're all born atheist, so as the world is NOW mostly theist

    I am guessing for those who turn theist while young it is a few things, education,culture,exposure, not knowing any different due to these things.

    And when older, a personal matter of choice, a preference. Something that results from some profound experience as is often the case.

    There is no eividence to suggest that men or women should only be sexually attracted to one gender and not both and yet the world is largely heterosexual out of 'belief' that this is the 'norm'.

    If you share that belief then you can see how easy it is to adopt a belief system that is without evidence based on 'choice'.

    The end


    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: A poll mainly for the atheists here. 
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    There is no eividence to suggest that men or women should only be sexually attracted to one gender and not both and yet the world is largely heterosexual out of 'belief' that this is the 'norm'.

    If you share that belief then you can see how easy it is to adopt a belief system that is without evidence based on 'choice'.
    Interesting comparison, but this only suggests to me that a child can be brought up to belief in certain ideas (religion, being heterosexual, etc) without evidence. It doesn't suggest to me that this is also the case for fully developped adults. And I don't see how 'choice' is involved in the process, a child doesn't choose to accept what his/her parents tell him is right, he accepts whatever they throw at him as true until puberty (but maybe I misinterpret your last sentence).

    As for me, I think brain damage is the only thing that can turn me theistic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: A poll mainly for the atheists here. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    There is no eividence to suggest that men or women should only be sexually attracted to one gender and not both and yet the world is largely heterosexual out of 'belief' that this is the 'norm'.

    If you share that belief then you can see how easy it is to adopt a belief system that is without evidence based on 'choice'.
    Interesting comparison, but this only suggests to me that a child can be brought up to belief in certain ideas (religion, being heterosexual, etc) without evidence. It doesn't suggest to me that this is also the case for fully developped adults. And I don't see how 'choice' is involved in the process, a child doesn't choose to accept what his/her parents tell him is right, he accepts whatever they throw at him as true until puberty (but maybe I misinterpret your last sentence).

    As for me, I think brain damage is the only thing that can turn me theistic.
    Basically the majority of adults and this may even include those of the gay community believe that it is 'natural' to be heterosexual, when in fact there is no evidence to suggest that it is 'natural' it just IS the way we live and choose to. Some have chosen to deviate from this societal 'norm'.

    Atheists have deviated from a societal 'norm' only if they were raised inside a predominantly theist community. Otherwise it was noit a choice it was the way they were (as are we all) born. Wea re all born atheist in that we have no knowledge of anything and everyting is learned.

    We learn of the concept of 'God' but only if we are exposed to those thoughts/concepts of 'God'. We may conclude there is something more than us without this exposure, based upon experiences but concluding that something more than us constitutes an ominpotent being who created us is quite a leap.

    Either way, heterosexuality is a 'belief' system. There is no evidence to support sexuality is anything other than a learned/heavily indoctrinated thing.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Either way, sexuality and faith are the same. There is no evidence to support sexuality is anything other than a learned/heavily indoctrinated thing.
    First of all, the lack of evidence for an effect is not evidence for the lack of effect. If anything, it constitutes a void of empirical study. Second of all, this certainly does not apply to the field of research on sexuality. I seriously doubt whether you are qualified to make statements about that field of study:

    Article from the New Scientist discussing a study about prenatal origins for homosexuality. Even if one makes the claim that such evidence is generally unpersuasive - it doesn't mean there is no evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Either way, sexuality and faith are the same. There is no evidence to support sexuality is anything other than a learned/heavily indoctrinated thing.
    First of all, the lack of evidence for an effect is not evidence for the lack of effect. If anything, it constitutes a void of empirical study. Second of all, this certainly does not apply to the field of research on sexuality. I seriously doubt whether you are qualified to make statements about that field of study:

    Article from the New Scientist discussing a study about prenatal origins for homosexuality. Even if one makes the claim that such evidence is generally unpersuasive - it doesn't mean there is no evidence.
    show me 'evidence' that it is natures intent that we are only heterosexual.

    In the absence of which, your reaction proves what I am trying to illustrate which is how it is possible for people to adopt a 'belief' system without 'evidence' and no amount of contrary opinion can dissuade them.

    I am not expressing an opinion myself with regards to sexuality just making the point, that as you say an absence of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence. That applies equally to the belief in God.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: A poll mainly for the atheists here. 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    given that there is no evidence, for any god, all religions are strictly faith based, what would be the reason/reasons you as an atheist would return to religion is any.

    or what would be the reason you think a atheist may become religious again.

    please let me know if there is an option missing.

    I personal can think of no reason to believe without any qualifing evidence.
    we're all born atheist, so as the world is NOW mostly theist

    I am guessing for those who turn theist while young it is a few things, education,culture,exposure, not knowing any different due to these things.
    exactly indoctrination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    And when older, a personal matter of choice, a preference. Something that results from some profound experience as is often the case.
    exactly traumatic a happening in their lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    There is no eividence to suggest that men or women should only be sexually attracted to one gender and not both and yet the world is largely heterosexual out of 'belief' that this is the 'norm'.
    there is, there called children.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: A poll mainly for the atheists here. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    there is, there called children.
    sex isn't just about reproduction or hadn't you noticed?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Either way, sexuality and faith are the same. There is no evidence to support sexuality is anything other than a learned/heavily indoctrinated thing.
    First of all, the lack of evidence for an effect is not evidence for the lack of effect. If anything, it constitutes a void of empirical study. Second of all, this certainly does not apply to the field of research on sexuality. I seriously doubt whether you are qualified to make statements about that field of study:

    Article from the New Scientist discussing a study about prenatal origins for homosexuality. Even if one makes the claim that such evidence is generally unpersuasive - it doesn't mean there is no evidence.
    show me 'evidence' that it is natures intent that we are only heterosexual.
    Nature's intent? What is that?

    In the absence of which, your reaction proves what I am trying to illustrate which is how it is possible for people to adopt a 'belief' system without 'evidence' and no amount of contrary opinion can dissuade them.
    What? What constitutes a belief exactly? I thought I just provided an article that demonstrated that you were, quite obviously, representing science incorrectly. I hardly see how this relates to my beliefs.

    I am not expressing an opinion myself with regards to sexuality just making the point, that as you say an absence of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence.
    What? No, I said that the absence of evidence for an effect does not mean that there is evidence for the absence of an effect.

    That applies equally to the belief in God.
    Yes, but that is quite irrelevant. To suggest that there is no evidence for or against God is just like saying that there is no evidence for or against the Greek Gods, or unicorns.
    At the most, this kind of thinking leads you to agnosticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    I think if humans were dumped on an island and left to their own devices, you would find that the majority would gravitate to hetrosexuality.

    The seeing my mum and dad/grand parents/neighbours relationships etc growing up didn't influence the natural desires i have when seeing someone attractive of the opposite sex, you can feel the genetic influence there and then

    I beleive hetrosexuality is hardwired in the majority of us, what causes the homosexuality, i believe is down to hormonal inbalances at whatever point in our development,

    but thats just my views


    But to the initial question/poll. the only thing that would cause me to turn to theism is either frontal lobotomy or brain trauma, well basically anything that makes me loose my sense of reality and common sense
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    You're very good at missing the point Homo.

    Re your acrticle about recent studies into Homosexuality.

    That article is irrelevant as it was recent.

    The fact is that up until the last couple of decades people have believed without 'evidence' that heterosexuality is the 'natural' order of things. They held that belief without 'evidence' other than observational and what they believed/were taught to be the 'norm'.

    So people believe without evidence...period.

    So MANY things are believed without evidence, you would be hard placed to list them. The indoctrination is powerful.

    that includes atheists.

    That's all I am trying to say.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    You're very good at missing the point Homo.
    Considering I study science at its highest levels, I suspect this is not entirely my fault

    Re your acrticle about recent studies into Homosexuality.

    That article is irrelevant as it was recent.

    The fact is that up until the last couple of decades people have believed without 'evidence' that heterosexuality is the 'natural' order of things. They held that belief without 'evidence' other than observational and what they believed/were taught to be the 'norm'.

    So people believe without evidence...period.
    Do you have evidence for that claim?

    So MANY things are believed without evidence, you would be hard placed to list them. The indoctrination is powerful.

    that includes atheists.

    That's all I am trying to say.
    Yes, and you have not an iota of evidence for it, methinks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    TOR:
    Why are to trying to railroad this thread.

    I am puzzled to your reference to homosexuality, you seem to think, that because more people are religious they must also be heterosexual, I believe that gayness is down to 70% choice and 30% hormonal imbalances.
    You seem to think there is a correlation between atheism and gayness.
    you said " There is no evidence to suggest that men or women should only be sexually attracted to one gender and not both and yet the world is largely heterosexual out of 'belief' that this is the 'norm'." This is wholly wrong, we are not heterosexual simply out of a believe, heterosexuality is/was the only way, (not so now with IVFs and the like) we could propagate the species, so it is certainly not a belief it's a fact, however we as a species do have a propensity to diversify our sexual practices.
    So as you say "no sex isn't just about reproduction or hadn't you noticed", however
    Without heterosexuality, none of us would be here; you can’t say the same for homosexuality.
    So if it was an analogy on your part it was a poor choice
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Homouniversalis Vs. TOR. AGAIN.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    TOR:
    Why are to trying to railroad this thread.

    I am puzzled to your reference to homosexuality, you seem to think, that because more people are religious they must also be heterosexual, I believe that gayness is down to 70% choice and 30% hormonal imbalances.
    Thank you for proving my point
    Note the words you wrote in 'bold'.

    Yous said:

    'I believe' and then posted an opinion (presented as a belief) which has ZERO evidence to support it. By that I mean your 70% this and 30% that. Where did those %'s come from? What study, when, by whom?

    What would it take for you to think it was more 50:50? A near death
    experience? A bad day? A new hairstyle?

    Thank you for demonatrating that people 'believe' all manner of things without foundation.

    That my dearest susan is WHY I used this analogy.

    I used it as I know that some of you are so oppose to the idea that bisexualism may be the norm that you will post all manner of nonsense to defend your 'belief' system. I am NOT saying I disagree with you (I don't think bisexualismn is the norm). I just used this analogy to prove a point re 'belief'.

    I succeeded.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    You're very good at missing the point Homo.
    Considering I study science at its highest levels, I suspect this is not entirely my fault

    .
    So where is your evidence to support your claims that my claims are wrong?

    You can't claim they are wrong unless you know it to be fact so where is your evidence? I will expect some supporting links when you claim my claims are wrong in future
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    From wikipedia:

    Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[122] For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[123]
    I'd say this points more towards hormonal imbalances etc than choice. People who are homosexual and are forced to be heterosexual are still homosexual in their minds. Many homosexuals who force themselves to think there's something wrong with them often suffer from mental issues. Homosexuality isn't choice, it's how a person is born.

    There are different theories on homosexuality:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex..._homosexuality

    The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[71] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". However, it states that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[72]

    The degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[73]
    Hope this helps.

    EDIT: Here's some more links with info:

    Men's homosexuality tied to having older brothers

    Homosexual Activity Among Animals/Discussion

    Lesbians Respond Differently to Human Pheromones

    Just a little extra read

    ------------------------------------------

    As for the poll. I would agree with captaincaveman:

    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    the only thing that would cause me to turn to theism is either frontal lobotomy or brain trauma, well basically anything that makes me loose my sense of reality and common sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Dear Susan

    Is there any chance ou could change the question - 'return' to religion seems assumptive, as though to be an atheist one has to have left it first. Perhaps 'turn' to religion?

    In any case, my answer would be nothing - I have not now, nor have ever had, a sense of faith.

    cheer

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    susan, i apologize ahead of time to derail your thread further, but i just have to express my incredulity at what's going on here.

    great flying cheesecakes, people. no evidence that heterosexuality is natural? i'm sorry, this is just a ridiculous argument, and i don't understand why its being given serious response. heterosexuality is natural because you need one individual of both sexes to reproduce and pass on your genes. if you're not attracted to the members of the opposite sex to at least some degree you are very unlikely to pass on any of your genes for that behavior. we are, after all, defined as a sexually reproducing species. even lay people understand this point fairly well. it's an easy one to grasp.

    now. the real question is, is a degree of homosexuality natural within a population? i feel there is evidence enough to suspect that it is. obviously listed some of it. also, in bonobos, the dominant sex is the females, and they strengthen their alliances in leadership via pleasing sexual interactions with each other. considering that in humans, the dominant sex is males, it makes sense that males might also carry out this kind of behavior to cement their leadership alliances as well. and if the genetic component of this trait is not exclusively sex-linked, then it will also express in females.

    *composes herself*

    as to the actual subject of the thread. speaking personally, i've been through some traumatic experiences in my life, and though the idea of accepting religion at the time would probably have made going through those experiences easier, i still could not bring myself to believe in them. even when i wanted to. i think once you've truly accepted your atheism, there won't ever be a reason to turn to religion without real evidence for its truth.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    something about cheesecake flying

    .
    P

    I too am incredulous that people are arguing the point too (re heterosexuality).

    The point of the analogy was not for me to prove a point either way re homo/heterosexuality but as a means of illustrating how belief in the absence of scientific evidence works in other areas not just religion.

    So while the response is off topic it demonstrates my point, which is that belief systems in the absence of evidence are not restricted to theists.

    You will note that Susan herself said

    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    , I believe that gayness is down to 70% choice and 30% hormonal imbalances.
    thus she demonstrated
    A) a belief and
    B) a belief which is NOT supported by evidence,*
    *No evidence re her %'s that is. Those I presume she pulled out of thin air.

    NOTE:
    B) is something which she claims NOT to be susceptible to in her first post.

    Quote Originally Posted by susan

    I personal can think of no reason to believe without any qualifing evidence.



    And this is why I used this analogy, so that I could 'out' Susans belief of something for which there is no qualifying evidence. So regardless of what you think re all sex being about making babies - Susan's 'belief' re the homosexuality %'s is NOT supported by scientific evidence. BUT she believes it anyway.

    Meanwhile I myself will eat your flying cheesecake when somone on the board actually understands what is being said without me having to keep stating the obvious.

    My earlier point stating this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    TOR:
    Why are to trying to railroad this thread.

    I am puzzled to your reference to homosexuality, you seem to think, that because more people are religious they must also be heterosexual, I believe that gayness is down to 70% choice and 30% hormonal imbalances.
    Thank you for proving my point
    Note the words you wrote in 'bold'.

    Yous said:

    'I believe' and then posted an opinion (presented as a belief) which has ZERO evidence to support it. By that I mean your 70% this and 30% that. Where did those %'s come from? What study, when, by whom?

    What would it take for you to think it was more 50:50? A near death
    experience? A bad day? A new hairstyle?

    Thank you for demonatrating that people 'believe' all manner of things without foundation.

    That my dearest susan is WHY I used this analogy.

    I used it as I know that some of you are so oppose to the idea that bisexualism may be the norm that you will post all manner of nonsense to defend your 'belief' system. I am NOT saying I disagree with you (I don't think bisexualism is the norm). I just used this analogy to prove a point re 'belief'.

    I succeeded.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    You're very good at missing the point Homo.
    Considering I study science at its highest levels, I suspect this is not entirely my fault

    .
    So where is your evidence to support your claims that my claims are wrong?
    I never said you were 'wrong'. I said you didn't have evidence for the view that people will believe stuff without evidence.

    You can't claim they are wrong unless you know it to be fact so where is your evidence? I will expect some supporting links when you claim my claims are wrong in future
    I asked you for evidence and this is how you reply? Mind you, I'm not unhappy with someone being critical, I just find it peculiar that you are willing to be more critical of my viewpoints than of your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    TOR:
    Why are to trying to railroad this thread.

    I am puzzled to your reference to homosexuality, you seem to think, that because more people are religious they must also be heterosexual, I believe that gayness is down to 70% choice and 30% hormonal imbalances.
    Thank you for proving my point
    Note the words you wrote in 'bold'.
    how does it prove your point, in regard to heterosexuality, I fail to see how, and how does my opinion in regard to homosexuality, prove your point you believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are not a natural things, but are mere beliefs.
    My personal opinion is the gayness is not a natural thing but a choice, some may have a different opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Yous said:

    'I believe' and then posted an opinion (presented as a belief) which has ZERO evidence to support it. By that I mean your 70% this and 30% that. Where did those %'s come from? What study, when, by whom?
    exactly it's my opinion, I have not ask you to believe it, I don’t need to back it up with facts.
    I play cards like a lot of people, and I believe that games of chance are 75% luck and 25% skill this is my opinion you wont find any data studies anywhere, ok.
    I believe I am entitled to my opinion, or is that taboo now.
    If I was quoting facts I would have furnished some back up sources.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    What would it take for you to think it was more 50:50? A near death
    experience? A bad day? A new hairstyle?
    nothing, I gave my answer above, ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Thank you for demonatrating that people 'believe' all manner of things without foundation.
    well of course they do, you wouldn't have the multitude of religious adherents otherwise, but this does not change the fact that heterosexuality is the natural, way to propagate the species. Thus cannot be a belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    That my dearest susan is WHY I used this analogy.

    I used it as I know that some of you are so oppose to the idea that bisexualism may be the norm that you will post all manner of nonsense to defend your 'belief' system. I am NOT saying I disagree with you (I don't think bisexualismn is the norm). I just used this analogy to prove a point re 'belief'.

    I succeeded.
    lol, by the way, I'm bisexual.

    Now stop derailing this thread.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    again, susan, my apologies.

    ToR, the belief that heterosexuality is normal IS based on evidence. The evidence that reproduction requires one man and one woman. That the vast majority of people the world over are heterosexual. This is something we all see and know from a very young age.

    You're also playing unfairly with semantics. Just because susan said she "believes" that gayness is 30% genetics and 70% environmental doesn't mean she pulled those numbers out of thin air. Those numbers are probably based on what she knows about the current state of research on homosexuality combined with personal experience about the world. Regardless of how accurate her percents might be, there are still based on evidence she has gathered through her experience. None of your examples are truly demonstrating a need for "belief" in the same sense as religious belief. Making guesses about the nature of gay people, that we live around and see every day, is not the same as making guesses about god, a supernatural and unknowable being.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Susan, you have provided yet more samples of things you believe in without firm evidence and you NOW acknowledge that you and other people (not just theists) do that. SO why then did you make that statement in your first post to say you would NOT do it?

    That was the point of my argument, to demonstrate your statement was daft. To put it bluntly.

    IT was thus 100% on topic.

    ish.

    I shall say no more on the matter.


    edit: I will try to say no more on the matter
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    ....
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    I just find it peculiar that you are willing to be more critical of my viewpoints than of your own.
    and I find it curious that you demand evidence constantly from others (me) and yet provide none yourself. You should lead by example.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Susan, you have provided yet more samples of things you believe in without firm evidence and you NOW acknowledge that you and other people (not just theists) do that. SO why then did you make that statement in your first post to say you would NOT do it?

    That was the point of my argument, to demonstrate your statement was daft. To put it bluntly.

    IT was thus 100% on topic.
    oh now I can just about understand your inane ramblings, because I said this (" I personal can think of no reason to believe without any qualifying evidence." ) in regard to a god/gods, you have made the error of believing it to be a general statement and not a direct statement about religion.
    the thread is in fact, in the religious section of a science forum, so the thread must be in regard to religion, and not any belief a person may have, it is wholly specific to religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    I shall say no more on the matter.
    good your inane ramblings are becoming boring, and well of topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    edit: I will try to say no more on the matter
    hurrah!
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    oh now I can just about understand your inane ramblings, because I said this (" I personal can think of no reason to believe without any qualifying evidence." ) .... you have made the error of believing it to be a general statement and not a direct statement about religion.
    the thread is in fact, in the religious section of a science forum, so the thread must be in regard to religion,
    Finally the penny drops, took a while, thought you'd never get there.

    Just because you post something in the religion forum does not mean
    when you make a general statement that it is not general but specific.

    You're just trying to cover your tracks. Nice try.... 8)

    Meanwhile if you are not thiest what are you doing hanging about in the religion forum obsessing about religious folk?

    You won't catch me obsessing about balloon sex. I have no interest in it.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Just because you post something in the religion forum does not mean
    when you make a general statement that it is not general but specific.

    You're just trying to cover your tracks. Nice try.... 8)
    No, you just took her comment out of context. Let's be realistic, ToR. Maybe she should have been more specific but you've been doing nothing but putting words in her mouth this whole time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Meanwhile if you are not thiest what are you doing hanging about in the religion forum obsessing about religious folk?

    You won't catch me obsessing about balloon sex. I have no interest in it.
    lol, that's a little of the pot calling the kettle black. you have more posts in this thread than susan does.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    Just because you post something in the religion forum does not mean
    when you make a general statement that it is not general but specific.
    I sure she said it was a direct statement and not a general one, you assumed it was general statement.
    and sure it does, your not going to post a thread about the sport, and start to talk about football and rugby, in the religious section now are you, you would put it forum specific, the mods would soon move if you didn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Meanwhile if you are not thiest what are you doing hanging about in the religion forum obsessing about religious folk?
    now that is just plain stupid, it's called a discussion forum, probably because thats what you do there, and it's also a science forum, with a religious sub forum. so it is really the religious hanging around in a science forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    You won't catch me obsessing about balloon sex. I have no interest in it.
    then why mention it. and you've done nothing else but obsess about sex homosexual sex, heterosexual sex, and now balloon sex.
    no you've not obsessed about sex at all have you.(sarcasm)
    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  
     

  32. #31  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Any men allowed in this discussion?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Any men allowed in this discussion?
    just because several women are discussing a subject at once doesn't suddenly make it "girl's night!!!" on the forum. sheesh.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Any men allowed in this discussion?
    just because several women are discussing a subject at once doesn't suddenly make it "girl's night!!!" on the forum. sheesh.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Any men allowed in this discussion?
    just because several women are discussing a subject at once doesn't suddenly make it "girl's night!!!" on the forum. sheesh.
    Or does it? 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Any men allowed in this discussion?
    just because several women are discussing a subject at once doesn't suddenly make it "girl's night!!!" on the forum. sheesh.
    Or does it? 8)
    I most certainly hope it doesn't. I would hate to be a part of the only group on an open science forum that suddenly decides it's going to be exclusive about who gets to join in the conversation and who doesn't. That's not the spirit of things around here.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Guest
    Well when TOR starts in, very few of us bother anymore. "womens night" or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    lol, that's a little of the pot calling the kettle black. you have more posts in this thread than susan does.
    er I think you'll find that is because I AM A THEIST!

    I have a strong belief system so while not religious any thread that is relating to 'belief' or theists is of interest to me.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Meanwhile, whether Susan 's post was ambiguous and meant something different to that literally stated or not, the fact remains.. I have demonstrated that atheists are just as susceptible to belief in the absence of evidence as theists.

    This is yet again one of those "let's find an indirect way to say theists are dumbo's" threads and I for one am bored of it. Get a life, get a room.

    If you despise theists, keep it to yourself.

    There is nothing new here.

    I don't post that atheists are stupid, because I don't believe it.

    It is however extremely 'STUPID' to make the sweeping statements (as many of you often do) that ALL theists by their very nature, are stupid, delussional and irrational.

    It's boring. This is a science forum. Present some evidence to back up these stupid, nonsensical claims or give it up.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    It is however extremely 'STUPID' to make the sweeping statements (as many of you often do) that ALL theists by their very nature, are stupid, delussional and irrational.

    It's boring. This is a science forum. Present some evidence to back up these stupid, nonsensical claims or give it up.
    Okay. I present you. I win.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    It is however extremely 'STUPID' to make the sweeping statements (as many of you often do) that ALL theists by their very nature, are stupid, delussional and irrational.

    It's boring. This is a science forum. Present some evidence to back up these stupid, nonsensical claims or give it up.
    Okay. I present you. I win.
    great answer, lol.
    she ain't making her case very well, is she.
    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  
     

  42. #41  
    Guest
    Not in the least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    she ain't making her case very well, is she.
    and where's your case? under your bed

    Are you saying theists are stupid, irrational, delussional then? If so present your evidence. Put up or shut up.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    she ain't making her case very well, is she.
    and where's your case? under your bed

    Are you saying theists are stupid, irrational, delussional then? If so present your evidence. Put up or shut up.
    Once again, I present you. In your own posts you have proven yourself stupid, irrational, and delusional. Also a bad speller.

    But an interesting thing here. There's not a CLAIM that most theists are stupid, it's a well proven fact amongst almost everyone besides the theists. If you think they're smart, prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Meanwhile, whether Susan 's post was ambiguous and meant something different to that literally stated or not, the fact remains.. I have demonstrated that atheists are just as susceptible to belief in the absence of evidence as theists.
    No. No you haven't. Was my previous post just ignored? Belief in the naturalness of heterosexuality is in fact based on evidence, when susan or someone else says something like "i believe gayness is 30% genetic" their use of the word "believe" doesn't predicate that this belief is not based on evidence they gathered through experience. You've shown squat.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    she ain't making her case very well, is she.
    and where's your case? under your bed

    Are you saying theists are stupid, irrational, delussional then? If so present your evidence. Put up or shut up.

    my opinion is at least 99% are, thats just from personal experience


    stupidity is something else(as has been mentioned on other areas of the forum, on numerous threads,), but in all honesty, irrational and delusional would have to be 100% definite,yes
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    she ain't making her case very well, is she.
    and where's your case? under your bed

    Are you saying theists are stupid, irrational, delussional then? If so present your evidence. Put up or shut up.

    my opinion is at least 99% are, thats just from personal experience


    stupidity is something else(as has been mentioned on other areas of the forum, on numerous threads,), but in all honesty, irrational and delusional would have to be 100% definite,yes
    I see,

    so when you 'alleged' sciency folk demand evidence via peer reviewed journal papers etc for every thought/opinion/comment that contradicts your own, when the boots on the other foot you cite diddlysquat and go back to the playground. Fascinating ethic you have. Consider it NOTED.


    I deem your opinion invalid hence forth. Back to your cave..Flintstone.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    she ain't making her case very well, is she.
    and where's your case? under your bed

    Are you saying theists are stupid, irrational, delussional then? If so present your evidence. Put up or shut up.

    my opinion is at least 99% are, thats just from personal experience


    stupidity is something else(as has been mentioned on other areas of the forum, on numerous threads,), but in all honesty, irrational and delusional would have to be 100% definite,yes
    I see,

    so when you 'alleged' sciency folk demand evidence via peer reviewed journal papers etc for every thought/opinion/comment that contradicts your own, when the boots on the other foot you cite diddlysquat and go back to the playground. Fascinating ethic you have. Consider it NOTED.


    I deem your opinion invalid hence forth. Back to your cave..Flintstone.

    i take it you dont like your beliefs confronted, if you think about my point of view, how can i be an atheist and at the same time not see the existence of a diety as not being irrational and delusional

    If an athiest doesn't see a diety as irrational and delusional he/she isn't much of an atheist

    Of course you can deem my future opinions as invalid, but surely that is just proving the closed mindedness of your religious views

    the caveman insult/comment is funny coming from a theist with ancient theological views of the world
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    It unbelieveably astonishes me that atheists are REALLY into defending themselves being atheists moreso than a theist or religious person would be. This is very curious given why they 'don't give a sh!t' about religion. But feel that having their atheism critised is soooo important. I don't believe in faeires but they may well exist (thats me being opened minded about having no evidence for them), but I don't JUMP right in there to defend that I don't believe in them, so why the big defense of one non-belief but not the other? There is definatley incongruence with atheists, compared to theists and agnostics. I wonder why this is?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I am disappointed in those of you arguing against TofR that your cases are presented in such a haphazard, ill conceived, ineffective, illogical manner. Apart from that they are wrong.

    If you were arguing that many theists are, in their theistic beliefs irrational and delusional, that might have merit as an argument. All I see here - perhaps due to imprecision in your language - is the claim that because theists are irrational, etc in one aspect of their thinking this necessarily applies to all. On that basis it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that all atheists were also irrational and delusional.

    If I may borrow Aristotle's(?) first cause, we live in a Universe in which cause and effect appear to be related. Logic and rational consideration of this suggest a first cause, a starting point. Since, currently, it seems that the most complex emergent property the Universe has evolved is self aware intelligent entities, one might reasonably surmise the possibility that a self aware intelligent entity could be associated with the emergence of the Universe as we know it.

    Consequently, I view theists, who think this is definitely the case, and atheists, who think it is not, to be irrational, deluded fools - but only in that regard. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I am disappointed in those of you arguing against TofR that your cases are presented in such a haphazard, ill conceived, ineffective, illogical manner. Apart from that they are wrong.

    If you were arguing that many theists are, in their theistic beliefs irrational and delusional, that might have merit as an argument. All I see here - perhaps due to imprecision in your language - is the claim that because theists are irrational, etc in one aspect of their thinking this necessarily applies to all. On that basis it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that all atheists were also irrational and delusional.

    Yeah sorry, i dont apply that to all aspects of theists lives, i made a wrong assumption(or more likely poorly worded) that it would be taken as meaning "i find them 100% irrational and delusional in respect of their views of a diesty from my atheistic point of view", i just assumed it would be taken that way based on the subject of this thread

    ToR that was meant in respect of your theistic views only not all aspects of your life :-D
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I am disappointed in those of you arguing against TofR that your cases are presented in such a haphazard, ill conceived, ineffective, illogical manner. Apart from that they are wrong.

    If you were arguing that many theists are, in their theistic beliefs irrational and delusional, that might have merit as an argument. All I see here - perhaps due to imprecision in your language - is the claim that because theists are irrational, etc in one aspect of their thinking this necessarily applies to all. On that basis it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that all atheists were also irrational and delusional.

    If I may borrow Aristotle's(?) first cause, we live in a Universe in which cause and effect appear to be related. Logic and rational consideration of this suggest a first cause, a starting point. Since, currently, it seems that the most complex emergent property the Universe has evolved is self aware intelligent entities, one might reasonably surmise the possibility that a self aware intelligent entity could be associated with the emergence of the Universe as we know it.

    Consequently, I view theists, who think this is definitely the case, and atheists, who think it is not, to be irrational, deluded fools - but only in that regard. 8)
    Grand Master 'O' has spoken.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    ToR that was meant in respect of your theistic views only not all aspects of your life :-D
    You don't KNOW what my theistsic views are so once again a poorly substantiated opinion.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    ToR that was meant in respect of your theistic views only not all aspects of your life :-D
    You don't KNOW what my theistsic views are so once again a poorly substantiated opinion.
    i know you believe in a supernatural deity is one form or another, what more do i need to know? the specifics are irrelevant if my comment is about the irrationality in the belief in a diety
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    Of course you can deem my future opinions as invalid, but surely that is just proving the closed mindedness of your religious views

    the caveman insult/comment is funny coming from a theist with ancient theological views of the world
    This proves my point. What religious view and what ancient theological views are you referring to?

    I have no religion and have no theological view.

    I've never read the Bible and could write what I know about Jesus on the back of a postage stamp.

    Re God being a dude with a beard living on a cloud, nope that's not my view either. Ominopent immortal...nope that's not my view either.

    I wonder if 'presumptiousness' is a sign of irrational or delussional personality type?

    ponder ponder
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If I may borrow Aristotle's(?) first cause, we live in a Universe in which cause and effect appear to be related. Logic and rational consideration of this suggest a first cause, a starting point. Since, currently, it seems that the most complex emergent property the Universe has evolved is self aware intelligent entities, one might reasonably surmise the possibility that a self aware intelligent entity could be associated with the emergence of the Universe as we know it.

    Consequently, I view theists, who think this is definitely the case, and atheists, who think it is not, to be irrational, deluded fools - but only in that regard. 8)
    however where that argument fails is the way in which it evade the objection to the argument, “Does God have a cause of his existence?”
    Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us.
    So I must be irrational and deluded, because your argument fails, but that's fair enough I'm happy.
    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  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    i know you believe in a supernatural deity is one form or another, what more do i need to know? the specifics are irrelevant if my comment is about the irrationality in the belief in a diety
    Am I a supernatural deity?

    Would you consider an alien life form a supernatural deity?

    Would you consider and earlier evolved form of humanity a supernatural deity?

    I wouldn't....

    I think you are sufferring from delussions, this 'all knowing' aspect of your character is kind of implicative of you having some ego issues. Perhaps you subconsciously think you're God?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    Of course you can deem my future opinions as invalid, but surely that is just proving the closed mindedness of your religious views

    the caveman insult/comment is funny coming from a theist with ancient theological views of the world
    This proves my point. What religious view and what ancient theological views are you referring to?

    I have no religion and have no theological view.

    I've never read the Bible and could write what I know about Jesus on the back of a postage stamp.

    Re God being a dude with a beard living on a cloud, nope that's not my view either. Ominopent immortal...nope that's not my view either.

    I wonder if 'presumptiousness' is a sign of irrational or delussional personality type?

    ponder ponder

    calm down, calm down are you saying you dont believe in a supernatural deity? are you not a theist?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    i know you believe in a supernatural deity is one form or another, what more do i need to know? the specifics are irrelevant if my comment is about the irrationality in the belief in a diety
    Am I a supernatural deity?

    Would you consider an alien life form a supernatural deity?

    Would you consider and earlier evolved form of humanity a supernatural deity?

    I wouldn't....

    I think you are sufferring from delussions, this 'all knowing' aspect of your character is kind of implicative of you having some ego issues. Perhaps you subconsciously think you're God?

    what? you have some serious issues? i subconsciously believe im god, because i say there isn't one i dont claim to be "all knowing", just giving my opinion, chill out

    come on explain to everyone the extent of your theistic views so we are all clear where you are coming from, surely thats easy enough to do
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I be irrational, duuuuuh...

    ...

    ...

    Sorry, that was... well... random...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    ponder ponder
    I found that picture of my american cocker spaniel, you reminded me off.
    the one I told you about a few weeks ago, I called furry with the tag "of relativity"

    handsome ain't he.
    sorry of topic but only this time.
    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  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    what? you have some serious issues? i subconsciously believe im god, because i say there isn't one i dont claim to be "all knowing", just giving my opinion, chill out

    come on explain to everyone the extent of your theistic views so we are all clear where you are coming from, surely thats easy enough to do
    The last comment re you being God was sarcasm, I see it went over your head.

    I am not as interested in discussing my belief system as you are in discussing your disbelief system. That is what I find odd.

    Don't you find it odd that you should be borderline obsessed with discussing your non belief? It's kind of a case of ' me think thou dost protest too much'. Some atheists surely do protest too much. Who you trying to convince really? Me or yourself or God?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If I may borrow Aristotle's(?) first cause, we live in a Universe in which cause and effect appear to be related. Logic and rational consideration of this suggest a first cause, a starting point. Since, currently, it seems that the most complex emergent property the Universe has evolved is self aware intelligent entities, one might reasonably surmise the possibility that a self aware intelligent entity could be associated with the emergence of the Universe as we know it.

    Consequently, I view theists, who think this is definitely the case, and atheists, who think it is not, to be irrational, deluded fools - but only in that regard. 8)
    Saying that there is a possibility that a self-aware intelligent entity is associated with the emergence of the universe is one thing; saying that at present I find no evidence to substantially support the theory that there is a self-aware intelligent entity associated with the emergence of the universe, is another. There are many theories where it is distinctly possible that one day evidence in support of them may come to light. But those theories are not followed until that happens. We do not function with the assumption that they are true, and base further theory on them. I do not deny that possibility that there is a supernatural being out there with the ability to hide itself from us. But until I find convincing evidence that this being's existence is not just possible but very likely, I will not function assuming that this being exists anyway. I think this is the original point of this whole thread.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    The God hypothesis becomes fallacious the moment it assumes something complex to explain the first cause. With all do respect, I think it's ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    what? you have some serious issues? i subconsciously believe im god, because i say there isn't one i dont claim to be "all knowing", just giving my opinion, chill out

    come on explain to everyone the extent of your theistic views so we are all clear where you are coming from, surely thats easy enough to do
    The last comment re you being God was sarcasm, I see it went over your head.

    I am not as interested in discussing my belief system as you are in discussing your disbelief system. That is what I find odd.

    Don't you find it odd that you should be borderline obsessed with discussing your non belief? It's kind of a case of ' me think thou dost protest too much'. Some atheists surely do protest too much. Who you trying to convince really? Me or yourself or God?

    thats cool, if your embarrassed, ashamed or whatever to air your views, i kinda knew the answer from further up this thread



    er I think you'll find that is because I AM A THEIST!

    I have a strong belief system so while not religious any thread that is relating to 'belief' or theists is of interest to me
    and i assume your definition of theist is the same as mine?

    Definition:

    1. belief in God: belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible


    2. belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods
    Obsession isn't the reason, i just find it interesting from the opposite side of the coin from yourself(see your quote), its more the psychology side that appeals

    the thing that i dont understand, is why the quickness to personal insults?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    the thing that i dont understand, is why the quickness to personal insults?
    How do YOU define insult?

    something someone says to you that you don't like

    or

    a personal offensive remark that you say to someone else?

    Have a nice day.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    But until I find convincing evidence that this being's existence is not just possible but very likely, I will not function assuming that this being exists anyway. I think this is the original point of this whole thread.
    If you consider that your lack of experience (evidence) of God is indeed good reason not to believe and YOU concede you will believe if evidence (that is satisfactory to you) is presented then you must accept that for those who have had experience/evidence (all be it observational only) that they are entitled to believe without condemnation.

    Your lack of experience should not be justification for ridicule of those that have some.

    You assume your nil experience is shared.

    Many things are not observable by the methods of scientific study, this does not mean that everyone that has had an experience outside of this, is mad, stupid or delussional.

    Meanwhile the option to change to theist if evidence was presented of a God, was not an option, wonder why that was? Could it be the nonbelief is so strong it will push aside evidence if it presents itself?

    Sour grapes.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    I deem your opinion invalid hence forth. Back to your cave..Flintstone
    I think you are sufferring from delussions, this 'all knowing' aspect of your character is kind of implicative of you having some ego issues. Perhaps you subconsciously think you're God
    well these two are both personal comments, and you comments do tend to have an aggressive edge, chill out a bit, its a science forum


    so are you still not comfortable sharing your theistic beliefs? or is it just a case of keeping your cards close to your chest?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    But until I find convincing evidence that this being's existence is not just possible but very likely, I will not function assuming that this being exists anyway. I think this is the original point of this whole thread.
    If you consider that your lack of experience (evidence) of God is indeed good reason not to believe and YOU concede you will believe if evidence (that is saitisfactory to you) is presented then you must accept that for those who had experience/evidence (all be it observational only) that they are entitled to believe without condemnation.

    Your lack of experience should not be justification for ridicule of those that have some.

    You assume your nil experience is shared.

    Many things are not observable by the methods of scientific study, this does not mean that everyone that has an experience outside of this, that they are mad, stupid or delussional.

    Sour grapes.
    ao what observational experience/evidence have you had?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    But until I find convincing evidence that this being's existence is not just possible but very likely, I will not function assuming that this being exists anyway. I think this is the original point of this whole thread.
    If you consider that your lack of experience (evidence) of God is indeed good reason not to believe and YOU concede you will believe if evidence (that is saitisfactory to you) is presented then you must accept that for those who had experience/evidence (all be it observational only) that they are entitled to believe without condemnation.

    Your lack of experience should not be justification for ridicule of those that have some.

    You assume your nil experience is shared.

    Many things are not observable by the methods of scientific study, this does not mean that everyone that has an experience outside of this, that they are mad, stupid or delussional.

    Sour grapes.

    And what do you mean by 'not function' - having belief system doesn't hinder function? Being a vegan hinders function! Being a smack head hinders function.
    My dear ToR, no where have I condemned theists en masse. I've disagreed with certain specific points you've made, and I've expressed my inability to agree with them, but I have yet to start calling names. You are making assumptions about my assumptions.

    Also, you mistake my meaning when I say "I will not function..." Perhaps it would be better if I had said, "I refuse to function assuming that..." or "I do not want to function assuming that..." etc.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    well these two are both personal comments, and you comments do tend to have an aggressive edge, chill out a bit, its a science forum
    ?
    want me to list your personal insults? Too many, I would not know where to start. Pot kettle black.

    Why is it you can't see your own insults I wonder?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    [quote="paralith"]
    I assumed by my use of 'YOU' you would understand I mean the global YOU, I am taking you as a representative of your scientific colleagues as much of what you say is text book. I mean that respectfully.

    I assume too much
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    well these two are both personal comments, and you comments do tend to have an aggressive edge, chill out a bit, its a science forum
    ?
    want me to list your personal insults? Too many, I would not know where to start. Pot kettle black.

    Why is it you can't see your own insults I wonder?

    I can see my own insults

    im happy to list them off this thread, these two are the only ones that could be classed as insults

    the caveman insult/comment is funny coming from a theist with ancient theological views of the world
    maybe this one could be seen as an insult? , im stating that people(yourself as a self proclamed theist) have theistic views based on the super natural elements of dietys, which was all too common before the popularity and discoverys of science before an alternative was avaliable, not really a personal insult at yourself but at the theist label you gave yourself, and therefore putting yourself in the supernatural field of fire

    what? you have some serious issues? i subconsciously believe im god, because i say there isn't one i dont claim to be "all knowing", just giving my opinion, chill out
    yeah, this one is probably the one insult, mainly based on your aggressive nature in posting, for this one i appologise :-D
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    well these two are both personal comments, and you comments do tend to have an aggressive edge, chill out a bit, its a science forum
    ?
    want me to list your personal insults? Too many, I would not know where to start. Pot kettle black.

    Why is it you can't see your own insults I wonder?

    I can see my own insults

    im happy to list them off this thread, these two are the only ones that could be classed as insults

    the caveman insult/comment is funny coming from a theist with ancient theological views of the world
    maybe this one could be seen as an insult? , im stating that people(yourself as a self proclamed theist) have theistic views based on the super natural elements of dietys, which was all too common before the popularity and discoverys of science before an alternative was avaliable, not really a personal insult at yourself but at the theist label you gave yourself, and therefore putting yourself in the supernatural field of fire

    what? you have some serious issues? i subconsciously believe im god, because i say there isn't one i dont claim to be "all knowing", just giving my opinion, chill out
    yeah, this one is probably the one insult, mainly based on your aggressive nature in posting, for this one i appologise :-D
    you have too much time on your hands...not an insult an observation.

    Night night x
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    well these two are both personal comments, and you comments do tend to have an aggressive edge, chill out a bit, its a science forum
    ?
    want me to list your personal insults? Too many, I would not know where to start. Pot kettle black.

    Why is it you can't see your own insults I wonder?

    I can see my own insults

    im happy to list them off this thread, these two are the only ones that could be classed as insults

    the caveman insult/comment is funny coming from a theist with ancient theological views of the world
    maybe this one could be seen as an insult? , im stating that people(yourself as a self proclamed theist) have theistic views based on the super natural elements of dietys, which was all too common before the popularity and discoverys of science before an alternative was avaliable, not really a personal insult at yourself but at the theist label you gave yourself, and therefore putting yourself in the supernatural field of fire

    what? you have some serious issues? i subconsciously believe im god, because i say there isn't one i dont claim to be "all knowing", just giving my opinion, chill out
    yeah, this one is probably the one insult, mainly based on your aggressive nature in posting, for this one i appologise :-D
    you have too much time on your hands...not an insult an observation.

    Night night x
    yes i probably do, thats the advantage of being a snake breeder, plenty of time on my hands :-D
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Back to your cave..Flintstone
    this was a joke, you have a caveman avatar - so why is calling you flintstone an insult?

    I think you are sufferring from delussions, this 'all knowing' aspect of your character is kind of implicative of you having some ego issues. Perhaps you subconsciously think you're God
    borderline, very borderline :wink:
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    well i appologise if anything was taken personally, my views on delusion in theists in respect to deitys still stands, but that is obviously from a non believers point of view and not a personal insult on yourself

    I believe that religion and politics is fair game for harsh critism, whereas followers of said theism aren't personally, though im human and things do slip :wink:
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    *whistle whistle*
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    So... who says theism is irrational?

    The defender of theism is here! Who dares challenge him? :wink:
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    So... who says theism is irrational?

    The defender of theism is here! Who dares challenge him? :wink:
    !ME!

    My argument is as follows:

    Theism is irrational... BECAUSE I SAY SO! BWhahahhahaha! Pwned!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    well i appologise if anything was taken personally, my views on delusion in theists in respect to deitys still stands, but that is obviously from a non believers point of view and not a personal insult on yourself

    I believe that religion and politics is fair game for harsh critism, whereas followers of said theism aren't personally, though im human and things do slip :wink:
    I'm working up to an apology..maybe tomorrow..it'still...can't...tap......keys......st uckkkkk..

    Meanwhile

    I think believing in Adam and Eve and the ol’ snake a tad odd, BUT I don't think the believers are delusional.

    The strength of belief in that story comes from an early (and necessary) trust in their parents to tell them the truth.

    When the Santa Claus myth was revealed as a lie, the trust may have been shattered, but if not, then with the continued support of the religious community the belief and trust in that story will likely remain unless substantially challenged, and unless they are in an environment where it will be substantially challenged, they will have zero reason to rethink their belief of that story.

    I NEVER challenge people in my daily life who have that belief, I do not even remark on it. It is their belief; it does them no harm (in the lives they lead) to have it.

    But as I say, there are reasons for the belief persisting into adulthood and it's not about being deluded, it's about having other things to think about and not given the story too much thought.

    It genuinely is the case that some of you atheists spend more time thinking about the intricacies of religion than do the religious.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    well i appologise if anything was taken personally, my views on delusion in theists in respect to deitys still stands, but that is obviously from a non believers point of view and not a personal insult on yourself

    I believe that religion and politics is fair game for harsh critism, whereas followers of said theism aren't personally, though im human and things do slip :wink:
    I'm working up to an apology..maybe tomorrow..it'still...can't...tap......keys......st uckkkkk..

    Meanwhile

    I think believing in Adam and Eve and the ol’ snake a tad odd, BUT I don't think the believers are delusional.

    The strength of belief in that story comes from an early (and necessary) trust in their parents to tell them the truth.

    When the Santa Claus myth was revealed as a lie, the trust may have been shattered, but if not, then with the continued support of the religious community the belief and trust in that story will likely remain unless substantially challenged, and unless they are in an environment where it will be substantially challenged, they will have zero reason to rethink their belief of that story.

    I NEVER challenge people in my daily life who have that belief, I do not even remark on it. It is their belief; it does them no harm (in the lives they lead) to have it.

    But as I say, there are reasons for the belief persisting into adulthood and it's not about being deluded, it's about having other things to think about and not given the story too much thought.

    It genuinely is the case that some of you atheists spend more time thinking about the intricacies of religion than do the religious.
    no need on my part, seriously, im sure with our differences of opinions we will clash horns again in the future and its not personal to yourself or any other theist, though it may come across like that at times


    i wouldn't dream of challenging anyone in my daily life either, but if the subject arose in conversation, i would still try and get my view point across

    Its sometimes hard for me to explain what i mean, but imagine if you met an adult who was serious when he said he believed in fairys and goblins, you would surely assume he was delusional to some degree, well i just go one fictional creature further(that sounds like something i heard in a dawkins lecture)

    sorry if you have strong anti views of him but it is kinda true

    We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •