Damn you, religion!

[leib10]

I don't think he or it exists. But I have no conclusive evidence to prove that either. Neither do religious people have evidence to prove his existence, if you're using pure science and known fact as a basis for proof.

That's why I'm agnostic, and not pure atheist.

 

[PvtRyan]

I don't think he or it exists. But I have no conclusive evidence to prove that either. Neither do religious people have evidence to prove his existence, if you're using pure science and known fact as a basis for proof.

That's why I'm agnostic, and not pure atheist.

No, you're an atheist. You don't believe in God, hence you're not theistic but non-theistic (aka: atheist). Agnosticism is a nonsensical position to take on the subject of a divine being's existence, why are you willing to give the concept of God the benefit of the doubt, but not the existence of pink unicorns? If you're agnostic towards God, you MUST be agnostic towards any concept.

 

[tehsolace]

The idea of God is one that just can't be proven nor unproven. It is, in its very nature, unmeasurable.

It all comes down to choice - do you choose to believe in a God, or not?

Why judge those that choose to believe? You made a choice too... it just happened to be a different one.


Small note:
What I do believe deserves some sort of judgment or criticism is those extremist believers who condemn atheists and try and control other peoples freedoms of religion.

 

[Absinthe]

The idea of God is one that just can't be proven nor unproven. It is, in its very nature, unmeasurable.

It all comes down to choice - do you choose to believe in a God, or not?

Why judge those that choose to believe? You made a choice too... it just happened to be a different one.

The difference is that my "choice" (I don't believe I chose to be an atheist) is consistent and intellectually defensible. If you choose to believe in something with no evidence and against the standards of validity we employ in every other aspect of our lives, why should you be exempt from critique? Especially if such views are worrisomely popular and shape our world.

God may not be disprovable (at least not currently), but he is very improbable and there is not a single reason to posit any credence to his existence. Saying you can't disprove him is a very weak defense, as anybody familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster should know. In the strictest, most technical sense, you can argue that we should be agnostics. But in practice, such agnosticism only goes to the same extent as fairies and leprechauns: For all intents and purposes, they do not exist.

People who defiantly proclaim themselves to be agnostics instead of atheists are either afraid to have the stigma of atheism attached to them or are treating the God hypothesis as a 50/50 chance of probability. It is not.

 

[Jangle]

Hmm, I'll probably be able to persuade her. I don't know how serious she is about the chastity thing anyway. Hopefully not very.

Any ideas for arguments are welcome.

"So, does this mean you like God more than me?"

"But God might not exist! It's 100% guaranteed that I exist!"

 

[Absinthe]

Chastity rings are usually a bad sign to begin with. You might want to tread lightly around God territory, unless you just want to get this over with quick.

 

[Jangle]

If she's a religious nut who gets all uptight about people saying God doesn't exist then I'd rather get it over with as soon as possible. We've had a few discussions about religion, me saying I didn't believe in God etc. and she seemed okay with it.

 

[PvtRyan]

The idea of God is one that just can't be proven nor unproven. It is, in its very nature, unmeasurable.

Sure, but does that mean both positions are equally likely and thus the position of agnosticism is warranted? Just because his existence or non-existence can't be proven, doesn't mean both possibilities have a 50% probability. Just because the existence of a pink unicorn in the center of the sun is unmeasurable, doesn't mean his existence is as likely as his non-existence and that agnosticism is the only valid position to take. The wises position on the unicorn is non-belief, even though it could exist, there is no evidence that it does and in the light of the absence of positive evidence for its existence it's more likely that it doesn't exist.

 

[tehsolace]

If you choose to believe in something with no evidence and against the standards of validity we employ in every other aspect of our lives, why should you be exempt from critique? Especially if such views are worrisomely popular and shape our world.

Thats a good point... if someone chooses to believe the moon was made of cheese, then they are surely open to be judged for believing that, considering we can give evidence to show that what they believe is false.

But the idea of God is unique, imo. There is just as much reason to choose one way as the other. Can you really say there is more reason to believe there is no God just because we have no way of measuring that he does exist? The way I see it, if theres no way of measuring whether or not something exists, then it is equally plausible that it does exist or does not exist.

Sure, but does that mean both positions are equally likely and thus the position of agnosticism is warranted? Just because his existence or non-existence can't be proven, doesn't mean both possibilities have a 50% probability. Just because the existence of a pink unicorn in the center of the sun is unmeasurable, doesn't mean his existence is as likely as his non-existence and that agnosticism is the only valid position to take. The wises position on the unicorn is non-belief, even though it could exist, there is no evidence that it does and in the light of the absence of positive evidence for its existence it's more likely that it doesn't exist.

Well... when you put it that way, my argument kind of sinks. I guess you have a good point - it makes sense to choose the belief that it doesn't exist until there is reason given to believe. Otherwise, we'll be believing in unicorns and Santa Claus since we can't prove they don't exist anymore than we can prove they do exist.

 

[Darkside55]

ITT, we puke up whatever Dawkins has said a million times and integrate it into our arguments to make them more persuasive.

Spaghetti monster pink unicorns celestial teapot

Spaghetti monster pink unicorns celestial teapot

Spaghetti monster pink unicorns celestial teapot

 

[PvtRyan]

ITT, we puke up whatever Dawkins has said a million times and integrate it into our arguments to make them more persuasive.

Spaghetti monster pink unicorns celestial teapot

Spaghetti monster pink unicorns celestial teapot

Spaghetti monster pink unicorns celestial teapot

So the argument's validity decreases with the number of times it's been used? Interesting, I didn't know that. The argument precedes Dawkins by the way.

 

[MJ12]

God didn't make us to make sex promises to him. What does she think she is, Mary mother of God?

My friend went to school with this weird chick, when in 6th grade she got excited that she got her period because she thought that now she might have the chance to birth Jesus

O_O

 

[Krynn72]

Truth is merely a point of view.

God's existence cannot be proved or disproved with science. Therefore, it is not truth that he does not exist.

Science can however prove the likeliness of his existence. And it has pretty much proved that the likeliness of his existence is a fraction of a percent.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I don't think he or it exists. But I have no conclusive evidence to prove that either. Neither do religious people have evidence to prove his existence, if you're using pure science and known fact as a basis for proof.

But, the burden of proof is on you. You cannot prove that there is not an elephant that dissapears when you look behind you. Its ridiculous and has no evidence, but you can't rpove it. It is my responsibility to prove the elephant exsits cause I am proprosing something with no evidence. The same works with God, we can't disprove Its exsitance sure, but the burden of proof is on those who rpopose it with no evidence.

This is not just directed at you BTW, its just your post was the most religious.

 

[leib10]

I agree with you all that the chance that God exists is extremely small, as are spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, etc. Yet my argument still stands: if you cannot disprove it irrefutably (and science has a way of contradicting itself later down the road as more technology becomes available), you cannot say conclusively that it does not exist.

Show me one conclusive test refuting God's existence, and I will believe you. Otherwise, there's always a possibility, however remotely small.

 

[Absinthe]

I agree with you all that the chance that God exists is extremely small, as is spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, etc. Yet my argument still stands: if you cannot disprove it irrefutably (and science has a way of contradicting itself later down the road as more technology becomes available), you cannot say conclusively that it does not exist.

Yes... and you have ignored the other half of the argument in this thread: Saying you can not disprove God is akin to saying you cannot disprove unicorns or any other unmeasurable, fanciful being or object. You don't throw up your hands and act impartial when somebody says there's a donkey in the middle of the sun. There is a possibility, however remotely small, that the universe will collapse on itself tomorrow. But we shouldn't respect this proposition. Why do you make God an exception?

Many of the arguments here predate Dawkins, so giving him credit is a bit misleading. But I do agree with his terming of "the poverty of agnosticism". If you call yourself an agnostic, you're according far too much respect to the idea of an existing deity.

To make a more pointed demonstration: Leib, do you consider yourself an agnostic when it comes to unicorns?

 

[PvtRyan]

I agree with you all that the chance that God exists is extremely small, as is spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, etc. Yet my argument still stands: if you cannot disprove it irrefutably (and science has a way of contradicting itself later down the road as more technology becomes available), you cannot say conclusively that it does not exist.

Show me one conclusive test refuting God's existence, and I will believe you. Otherwise, there's always a possibility, however remotely small.

Of course, I agree completely with that. However, you misinterpret atheism as "I believe there is no God" when generally it means "I don't believe there is a God". You're an atheist. Agnosticism is saying "both are equally likely so I'm sitting on the fence".

 

[Laivasse]

Even if the ring says she can't have sex, you can still try slipping her ring around your finger. You see what I've done there?

 

[MJ12]

I sit on the fence with this one. It's like the Depeche Mode song "People are People so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?"

can't we just not argue about beliefs and get along =D

 

[Absinthe]

I sit on the fence with this one. It's like the Depeche Mode song "People are People so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?"

can't we just not argue about beliefs and get along =D

No, because many peoples' beliefs run counter to getting along.

 

[MJ12]

No, because many peoples' beliefs run counter to getting along.

psh, as long as your not like -
*hick voice* "I hate jews, black people, and gays" then there shouldn't be much to get angry about

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You don't throw up your hands and act impartial when somebody says there's a donkey in the middle of the sun.

You mean theres not!? ;(

 

[Absinthe]

psh, as long as your not like -
*hick voice* "I hate jews, black people, and gays" then there shouldn't be much to get angry about

More like "Marriage is for a man and a woman", "Three day old embryos are human life", "Intelligent design is just as valid as evolution", "God told me to invade Iraq", "Homosexuals should burn in Hell", and even "Depicting Mohammed is a punishable offense".

These are not beliefs held by some crazy corner of theism. Many of these are actually mainstream. And so long as these beliefs exist, especially in positions of power, they effect everything from medical science, to education, to civil rights, to war. It is a moral disservice to let them go unchallenged.

 

[PvtRyan]

You forgot "Embryos are human life so we shouldn't use them to cure awful diseases in children and adults and prevent the actual suffering of someone". Although you had it partially covered.

 

[Absinthe]

Too big a sentence. But yeah, that was what I was getting at.

 

[Stigmata]

Funny how people in power are fine by allowing the "necessary sacrifice" of sending two thousand soldiers to death to protect 300 million civilians, when aborting one fetus to help with stem cell research to prevent diseases that kill tens of thousands of people every year doesn't count as the same.

 

[Godron]

@ Jangle: If you're going to try arguing with her on this, I'd be very careful with the choice of words. You probably already know how easy it is for people to get all defensive when someone criticises their religion. The same with most other choices people make I suppose, it's easy to get offended unnecessarily. If that happens, she might well block out logic and not listen to you. You should probably try to say something that makes it seem as though religion is screwing her over (which it is), because another thing people are prone to is feeling victimised. Also, you might not want to make it obvious you're talking about the ring - that way she's more likely to listen to you than if she knows you're trying to persuade her to do something.

Then again, if she really loves and understands you, and knows you wouldn't just selfishly attack her and her beliefs for your own motives, she might listen to you if you just try reasoning. I don't know.

 

[Dinkleberry]

Haha, I read the original post and thought, yeah nothing too out of the ordinary, then I saw your location wasn't America and is in fact a place in the UK... with a Teeside postcode! Was quite shocked
I think you're going to have to accept the fact there's going to be no sechs for you! No matter how tactful you are, any talk of her religion is going to seem like you're pressuring her for sex, and if you manage to convince her (with or without vodka hahaha), she'll probably regret it in the morning and the relationship is over. Go with the flow.

 

[Jangle]

Haha, I read the original post and thought, yeah nothing too out of the ordinary, then I saw your location wasn't America and is in fact a place in the UK... with a Teeside postcode! Was quite shocked
I think you're going to have to accept the fact there's going to be no sechs for you! No matter how tactful you are, any talk of her religion is going to seem like you're pressuring her for sex, and if you manage to convince her (with or without vodka hahaha), she'll probably regret it in the morning and the relationship is over. Go with the flow.

Do you reckon oral counts?

 

[leib10]

Yes... and you have ignored the other half of the argument in this thread: Saying you can not disprove God is akin to saying you cannot disprove unicorns or any other unmeasurable, fanciful being or object. You don't throw up your hands and act impartial when somebody says there's a donkey in the middle of the sun. There is a possibility, however remotely small, that the universe will collapse on itself tomorrow. But we shouldn't respect this proposition. Why do you make God an exception?

Many of the arguments here predate Dawkins, so giving him credit is a bit misleading. But I do agree with his terming of "the poverty of agnosticism". If you call yourself an agnostic, you're according far too much respect to the idea of an existing deity.

To make a more pointed demonstration: Leib, do you consider yourself an agnostic when it comes to unicorns?

I know. It was implied in my statement that you cannot really disprove the existence of even the most fanciful of things in a scientific manner.

So yes, I guess you could say that I am an agnostic when it comes to unicorns, because there is no way to disprove their existence in the universe. Once again, science has not yet evolved to the point where we can make such deductions.

Does that mean I believe in unicorns, donkeys in the sky, and God? No. But I also cannot conclusively say that they do not exist either, based on that measuring stick everybody uses: science.

So who knows? Maybe we'll see unicorns and God someday, maybe we won't. We probably won't, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Of course, I agree completely with that. However, you misinterpret atheism as "I believe there is no God" when generally it means "I don't believe there is a God". You're an atheist. Agnosticism is saying "both are equally likely so I'm sitting on the fence".

Yes, that was my mistake in terminology. Sorry for the mixup.

 

[Krynn72]

This thread reminds me of the movie Angels in the Outfield.

"It could happen!"

 

[MJ12]

More like "Marriage is for a man and a woman", "Three day old embryos are human life", "Intelligent design is just as valid as evolution", "God told me to invade Iraq", "Homosexuals should burn in Hell", and even "Depicting Mohammed is a punishable offense".

These are not beliefs held by some crazy corner of theism. Many of these are actually mainstream. And so long as these beliefs exist, especially in positions of power, they effect everything from medical science, to education, to civil rights, to war. It is a moral disservice to let them go unchallenged.

no, really those are just extremists that don't take the time to stop and actually think about their beliefs, and instead follow them like mindless drones. Your talking about fundamentalists, and not all religious people are fundamentalists.

The only one that is debatable is the abortion one, I can understand there being an arguement there, but when it comes to sexual preference, race, and wars, just accept people, I know a lot of religious people who are not crazy fundamentalists that do not hate homosexuals

So who gives a crap if he believes in this god, and I believe in that god, and she believes in no god.

People need to just shut up and treat each other like people, instead of throwing stones at each other. Because that makes everyone a hypocrite, no matter what your belief is

 

[Absinthe]

I know. It was implied in my statement that you cannot really disprove the existence of even the most fanciful of things in a scientific manner.

So yes, I guess you could say that I am an agnostic when it comes to unicorns, because there is no way to disprove their existence in the universe. Once again, science has not yet evolved to the point where we can make such deductions.

Does that mean I believe in unicorns, donkeys in the sky, and God? No. But I also cannot conclusively say that they do not exist either, based on that measuring stick everybody uses: science.

So who knows? Maybe we'll see unicorns and God someday, maybe we won't. We probably won't, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Again, I technically do not disagree. I just think that proclaiming yourself as an agnostic on something so improbable and dumb is a hollow gesture. Just call yourself an atheist. That is what you are, after all. A non-theist.

no, really those are just extremists that don't take the time to stop and actually think about their beliefs, and instead follow them like mindless drones. Your talking about fundamentalists, and not all religious people are fundamentalists.

The only one that is debatable is the abortion one, I can understand there being an arguement there, but when it comes to sexual preference, race, and wars, just accept people, I know a lot of religious people who are not crazy fundamentalists that do not hate homosexuals

You are completely confusing "mainstream" with "moderate". You do not have to be moderate to have your beliefs widely accepted. That's an erroneous myth. Fundamentalism is alive and well, and it's subscribed to by many across the globe.

So who gives a crap if he believes in this god, and I believe in that god, and she believes in no god.

I do, because more often than not, the kind of god you believe in says a lot about you as a person and what you are willing to do.

FACT: Same sex marriage faces resistance across the country by primarily religious opposition.
FACT: Stem cell research has been denied federal funding on religious grounds.
FACT: Pseudoscience junk like intelligent design is being shoved into school systems primarily by religious creationists.
FACT: When Danish newspapers printed depictions of Mohammed, Muslims around the world rioted, boycotted Danish goods, vandalized embassies, and even killed people in protest.

If most people were happy-go-lucky, peaceful, unobtrusive moderates like you seem to think they are, then why does this stuff happen and continue to happen?

This isn't shit from the fringe. These are inarguably popular ideas held by countless people, and they clearly hold sway. Just because you know people who have essentially castrated their faith (and good for them) doesn't mean their more brutish, archaic counterparts don't exist.

People need to just shut up and treat each other like people, instead of throwing stones at each other. Because that makes everyone a hypocrite, no matter what your belief is

Everything I listed both above and in my previous post go against treating others like people. They are very real and they are very prominent. There are people who take their religion very seriously, so much that they are more than willing to impose it upon others. Pretending that they don't exist or that they're some marginal, inconsequential slice of the theist pie gets you nowhere.

 

[leib10]

Perhaps so.

 

[CptStern]

Funny how people in power are fine by allowing the "necessary sacrifice" of sending two thousand soldiers to death to protect 300 million civilians, when aborting one fetus to help with stem cell research to prevent diseases that kill tens of thousands of people every year doesn't count as the same.

the figure just surpassed 3600 ..3638 to be exact

http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[Pulse]

Yay another religious debate!

This accomplishes so much!

 

[Absinthe]

Yay another religious debate!

This accomplishes so much!

I love nothing more than sitting down with my mates, smoking some joints and playing GoW all evening. Bongs and pipes I really can't be arsed with though, I prefer getting that mild, chilled out buzz and the giggles, but getting stoned off your tits to the point where you become a drooling sack in the corner is just a waste.

Then again the feeling of floating down stairs is fun.

A post about weed! This accomplishes so much!

You cannot defeat cheaters, IP bans do nothing. They will always find a way around the current security measures, so the best thing you can do is password protect your server.

As for having games companies creating a union? Oh my christ, what planet are you on?

A post about cheating! This accomplishes so much!

Why should today's generation apologise for something they had no direct involvement with? By that logic I should march over to Italy right now and demand an apology for the time my great grandfather was blown up in a tank during WW2. And then I'll catch a train to Berlin and ask Germany to apologise for starting the whole mess... oh and then we'll sneak in a quick 'Sorry' for the millions of Jews slaughtered during the Holocaust. Wait, then I'll demand apologies for their involvement in the Norman conquests. A fat load of good that'll do right?

Or how about we all learn from past atrocities via museums, literature, documentaries, memorial days and develop understanding and knowledge so that these events never occur again? By maintaining a sense of neutrality from all sides this is clearly the best way to go.

A post about apologies! This accomplishes so much!

*Sigh* Why do people have this absurd expectation that online banter is supposed to have some intent of grand accomplishment?

 

[Pulse]

A post about weed! This accomplishes so much!



A post about cheating! This accomplishes so much!



A post about apologies! This accomplishes so much!

*Sigh* Why do people have this absurd expectation that online banter is supposed to have some intent of grand accomplishment?

 

[Stigmata]

Pulse, if you don't think our debates will have any affect on others' opinions, then you can kindly not join in and try to dismantle whatever discussions we're having.

 

[Asknoone]

I'm tired of the ho-hum "Oh lame a religious debate plz lock going nowhere." So tired, in fact, that the ban button is bouncing on its spring.

Of course, who am I kidding, "DO YOU SHAVE?" Truly meaningful discussion. If you do not like what is being discussed please do not post.