For all the ex-religious.

[TheDude]

I think you have missed the point or are oversimplifying for the sake of your position.

The whole debate comes down to one point: Either you believe or you don't. There is no way to prove the the existence of God and there is no way to prove God doesn't exist. Therefore making claims on the existence of God not preceded by the phrase "I believe..." is presumptuous.

You (and many others) appear to have a distorted view of Christianity... Either that or you have committed the Fallacy of Composition and have assumed the all Christians (or religious people in general) are the same as the loudmouth fundamentalists we see on the news.

I know you were probably being sarcastic but... for the record, masturbation is not a sin. Neither is ogling pretty women, and man is not inherently evil. That's all fundamentalist BS.

At the end of the day though you cannot justify Christian or religious beliefs in general. Sure, you can dress them up and make them seem logical, but they still have no basis in fact or reality. And that's a fact. Its a fact that no one has seen god and been able to prove it. For some reason though, the burden of proof has fallen on the atheists to disprove something that's made up in the first place. How can you disprove something if it doesn't exist and has never been shown to exist? The whole argument is truly absurd and the fact that it exists is a testimony to how infantile we are as a species. We still can't put our boogey men to rest.

 

[flamingdts]

We see people using the same argument everyday.

Innocent until proven guilty, true until proven wrong etc.

The problem people are facing is whether we should see God as "real until proven fake" or "fake until proven real".

I personally believe in a higher power, but not one that intervenes with the current reality. I do think that some coincidences and miracles are caused by a higher power, but I highly doubt this higher power wishes to be worshipped everyday. Heck, I doubt this higher power is interested in solving your problems.

Bottomline, I believe there is something supernatural out there going on. But whether to call it "God" is a completely differnet story. I myself don't even know what to call it, Karma? Fate?

 

[Shift]

How can you disprove something if it doesn't exist and has never been shown to exist?

Thats the biggest cop out I've ever heard. You've been asked to prove his non-existence, saying you can't because he just doesn't is bypassing the question entirely.

 

[kineaesth]

Blah blah burden of proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Asymmetry_in_the_burden_of_proof

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Warbie]

Hang on, do fairies exist or not?

 

[kineaesth]

The bar goes all the way to the end so I think that means that yes they do

 

[Warbie]

Phew, close call.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Thats the biggest cop out I've ever heard. You've been asked to prove his non-existence, saying you can't because he just doesn't is bypassing the question entirely.

 

[Sparta]

Bertrand Russell's all up in your logic.

 

[CptStern]

A helpful tip: don't think of the God people preach that replaces evolution. Think of God as a being that made the big bang happen. Or at least made the matter that resulted in the bang.

ok but that would be cherry picking what you want and inventing the rest. it's a convenient way out of some of the more ridiculous ideas presented in christianity. I remember an interview with the vatican astronomer, a priest who believed inthe big bang. the interviewer asked if it was "just stories" and he said "yes, morality plays to set a guideline but divine intervention in humanity's affairs? ...nah" and then he kinda chuckled. this sort of shift in thinking over the last 50 years or so is indicative of a bigger trend: the casting away of religiousosity in liberal/progressive society. sure there's a minor blip in the rise in extremism and traditionalism but I think it's not here to stay long term.

That's probably because you take the descriptions too literally.

they were meant to be taken literally. there is no indication that they were ever meant to be taken solely as educational parables but as historical events

And in theory, our definitions of probability and ability to describe things would be inadequate, but that's a different topic.

sure but in the case of religious creationism the probability hovers around the zero mark as it's just too silly to be probable. it's not even a remote possibility because there's swo much evidence that contradicts creation myths

The idea that the burden of proof lays solely on the religious is faulty, anyway. Lack of proof within our realm of perception for one idea doesn't make the other idea correct by default. Again, that's why agnosticism would make more sense for you.

seems to make more sense for you. I'm comfortable in my non-belief

Har har. I could have worded it better... for all three, there is no physical way for them to perceive the existence of an elephant over there head, or the absence of one. The elephant is outside their realm of physical perception, mostly because the elephant created their realm of perception.

a more accurate analogy is that "Some people believe the elephant is outside their realm of physical perception, mostly because they believe the elephant created their realm of perception, but he's not really there, they just believe he is"

Oh, forget the damn elephant analogy.

ya it quickly became an albatross around your neck



a better anology: 3 people are walking down a path towards a bridge over a sheer cliff ..except there is no bridge, none that the eye can see. the first person is convinced there's a bridge but we just cant see it, the second is not sure whether there's a bridge but wont take the chance of crossing till he sees proof and lastly the 3rd person is absolutely sure there is no bridge and thinks the first guy is stupid for attempting to cross. the first person acts on what he believes is there' the second person fails to act because he needs confirmation and the third person fails to act because he's sure of the outcome


the best thing about this anology is that at the end of the story the religious guy falls off a cliff :E




<runs>

 

[Noodle]

ok but that would be cherry picking what you want and inventing the rest. it's a convenient way out of some of the more ridiculous ideas presented in christianity.

they were meant to be taken literally. there is no indication that they were ever meant to be taken solely as educational parables but as historical events

Taking everything literally presents contradictions (i.e. Be peaceful and tolerant except to gays and whores), while taking things figuratively and looking at the big picture/main ideas (i.e. Don't be a dick, don't be greedy, don't give up on what's right, etc.).

Also, many of the more ridiculous claims are still subject to the various translations and interpretations of the Bible. The big picture and idea of not being a douchebag, however, is less likely to have been mistranslated.

 

[CptStern]

Taking everything literally presents contradictions (i.e. Be peaceful and tolerant except to gays and whores), while taking things figuratively and looking at the big picture/main ideas (i.e. Don't be a dick, don't be greedy, don't give up on what's right, etc.).

Also, many of the more ridiculous claims are still subject to the various translations and interpretations of the Bible. The big picture and idea of not being a douchebag, however, is less likely to have been mistranslated.

ya but you dont have to believe in god to come to that conclusion


I think it's less of a case of mistranslation and more of a case that ignorance of the world around them was the norm

 

[Absinthe]

Thats the biggest cop out I've ever heard. You've been asked to prove his non-existence, saying you can't because he just doesn't is bypassing the question entirely.

This is a joke post, right?

 

[Noodle]

This is a joke post, right?

I think he saw it as a tautism of the "It's illogical because it's illogical." variety. I'm not sure, though.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Man, after reading Umineko all these arguments seem so silly.

For an irrational argument you must use irrational arguments.

Some of you are using the devil's proof, which is 'you can prove something to exist, but you cannot prove something to not exist'. In a courtroom this would never work, but on a message board it's just infuriating to the 'it doesn't exist' side of the argument.

I think Hempel's raven could be used here too.

Say, God does not exist.

Therefore, everything that does not exist is God.

Weeeee.

Schrodinger's box.

As long as there is no proof for God both not existing and existing, he is both nonexistent and exists at the same time.

 

[lord_raken]

a better anology: 3 people are walking down a path towards a bridge over a sheer cliff ..except there is no bridge, none that the eye can see. the first person is convinced there's a bridge but we just cant see it, the second is not sure whether there's a bridge but wont take the chance of crossing till he sees proof and lastly the 3rd person is absolutely sure there is no bridge and thinks the first guy is stupid for attempting to cross. the first person acts on what he believes is there' the second person fails to act because he needs confirmation and the third person fails to act because he's sure of the outcome


the best thing about this anology is that at the end of the story the religious guy falls off a cliff :E


<runs>

That analogy only works if there is a consequence for believing in a God that does not exist.

A road is a better Analogy. Three people are driving in the mountains. One is sure the road goes to the top of the mountain, one is not sure, and the third claims the mountain top doesn't exist.

Now let us say that the road suddenly ends and there is no mountain. Does the one who thought the mountain existed suffers somehow? No. Regardless of their belief about the road, the journey is over for all three of them. But if the road does go up to a mountain the person who believed in the mountain gets to say "See, I told you," and the one who said there was no mountain will be very surprised to find out he was wrong.

The only negative effect of believing for a moderate believer is being called irrational by the people who claim there is no mountain. If we are wrong it wont matter because we won't exist and the road will end.

 

[Stigmata]

Okay. If you're taking the Bible metaphorically, then you are necessarily, and by definition, relating it to morals and values that were created and decided upon outside of and without influence from the Bible. In other words, you are just conforming the Bible, using metaphors, to a set of preconceived morals. You'd come to the same conclusion regardless of what text you were citing - the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the DSM-IV, or anything else.

 

[Mogi67]

Okay. If you're taking the Bible metaphorically, then you are necessarily, and by definition, relating it to morals and values that were created and decided upon outside of and without influence from the Bible. In other words, you are just conforming the Bible, using metaphors, to a set of preconceived morals. You'd come to the same conclusion regardless of what text you were citing - the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the DSM-IV, or anything else.

I don't think that really works. The only thing that gives morality efficacy is transcendence.

 

[Noodle]

Okay. If you're taking the Bible metaphorically, then you are necessarily, and by definition, relating it to morals and values that were created and decided upon outside of and without influence from the Bible. In other words, you are just conforming the Bible, using metaphors, to a set of preconceived morals. You'd come to the same conclusion regardless of what text you were citing - the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the DSM-IV, or anything else.

Not entirely, but sorta.

I follow a general sense of morality you find throughout the most common interpretations of most religious texts. The whole "Don't be a dick, be tolerant, etc" stuff. I realize that morality is not exclusive to any one religion or philosophy, though I came to that morality through my religion, which follows the Bible.

And as even the Bible itself teaches, morality wasn't created when the Bible was written, it simply served to pass on certain morals and ensure that they continued to be a part of society (Again, the general ideas, not literal specifics). I think, though this is somewhat speculative on my part.

And the idea of not taking it literally doesn't mean I'm using metaphors to fit it to preconceived notions... I'm not sure how you got that. Not if I came to that system of morality through the Bible. There are multiple ways to come to that morality.

 

[Mogi67]

Okay. If you're taking the Bible metaphorically, then you are necessarily, and by definition, relating it to morals and values that were created and decided upon outside of and without influence from the Bible. In other words, you are just conforming the Bible, using metaphors, to a set of preconceived morals. You'd come to the same conclusion regardless of what text you were citing - the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the DSM-IV, or anything else.

The Torah is the first five books of the bible....

 

[Absinthe]

I think he saw it as a tautism of the "It's illogical because it's illogical." variety. I'm not sure, though.

No, he basically said it's unreasonable to demand burden of proof and that the argument against the existence of God required equal evidence.

Anybody with a join date prior to 2010 should be very well acquainted with this forum's love affair with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and celestial teapots.

 

[Absinthe]

That analogy only works if there is a consequence for believing in a God that does not exist.

A road is a better Analogy. Three people are driving in the mountains. One is sure the road goes to the top of the mountain, one is not sure, and the third claims the mountain top doesn't exist.

Now let us say that the road suddenly ends and there is no mountain. Does the one who thought the mountain existed suffers somehow? No. Regardless of their belief about the road, the journey is over for all three of them. But if the road does go up to a mountain the person who believed in the mountain gets to say "See, I told you," and the one who said there was no mountain will be very surprised to find out he was wrong.

The only negative effect of believing for a moderate believer is being called irrational by the people who claim there is no mountain. If we are wrong it wont matter because we won't exist and the road will end.

Pascal's Wager as well!

Maybe the God that really exists doesn't like the way you behave and you're ****ed any way. Think of that?

The Torah is the first five books of the bible....

You know what he means and you know what he's arguing. Please... spare everybody.

 

[JDM Accord]

HAHA, just noticed your sig is a Tim and Eric quote. Much respect me bredda!

 

[RidleyRockets]

Not entirely, but sorta.

I follow a general sense of morality you find throughout the most common interpretations of most religious texts. The whole "Don't be a dick, be tolerant, etc" stuff. I realize that morality is not exclusive to any one religion or philosophy, though I came to that morality through my religion, which follows the Bible.

And as even the Bible itself teaches, morality wasn't created when the Bible was written, it simply served to pass on certain morals and ensure that they continued to be a part of society (Again, the general ideas, not literal specifics). I think, though this is somewhat speculative on my part.

And the idea of not taking it literally doesn't mean I'm using metaphors to fit it to preconceived notions... I'm not sure how you got that. Not if I came to that system of morality through the Bible. There are multiple ways to come to that morality.

 

[Shift]

No, he basically said it's unreasonable to demand burden of proof and that the argument against the existence of God required equal evidence.

Anybody with a join date prior to 2010 should be very well acquainted with this forum's love affair with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and celestial teapots.

Yes I did say that but in all honestly the argument is quite pointless, I have my faith and thats not going to change, I choose to believe in a higher power not down to logic (because well faith has nothing to do with logic actually) but mainly because of feelings, the sort of strong feelings I get in everyday life that screams there is something more and greater about this, beyond what I can just see, its been there since I was small and well I don't expect any of you to understand, in fact, I may as well have said that a brick wall than on here.

Atheists can carry on non-believing like I know they will and I shall can carry on believing. Everyone has an entitlement to a belief and debating about it as pointless as the first we had on here yearsssss ago which if I recall was locked eventually due to mass name calling.

 

[TheDude]

Yes I did say that but in all honestly the argument is quite pointless, I have my faith and thats not going to change, I choose to believe in a higher power not down to logic (because well faith has nothing to do with logic actually) but mainly because of feelings, the sort of strong feelings I get in everyday life that screams there is something more and greater about this, beyond what I can just see, its been there since I was small and well I don't expect any of you to understand, in fact, I may as well have said that a brick wall than on here.

Atheists can carry on non-believing like I know they will and I shall can carry on believing. Everyone has an entitlement to a belief and debating about it as pointless as the first we had on here yearsssss ago which if I recall was locked eventually due to mass name calling.

It usually ends with the believers saying its pointless to debate their beliefs. As an atheist, I see its important to bring these beliefs to light and see why people believe them. No offense to you, but its similar to a psychologist bringing out the origins of someone's problems. You probably have an origin for your psychosis. That can be Dawkin's next book. The God Psychosis.

 

[Dynasty]

I find it irritating when people talk about their faiths. I know that everyone needs something to believe in, but religion in my eyes is just a doctrine used to control the masses.

And why do people pray?

You ask any religious person if they think their 'God' has a plan, and they will almost always say yes. Well in my experience anyway.

So then I ask; ''Well if he or she has a plan, how is your praying for change going to change those plans if it's already 'written' in your opinion?''

I find it hard to believe in fate, as you can change ANYTHING that involves you in this world, whenever you want to change it.

 

[Shift]

It usually ends with the believers saying its pointless to debate their beliefs. As an atheist, I see its important to bring these beliefs to light and see why people believe them. No offense to you, but its similar to a psychologist bringing out the origins of someone's problems. You probably have an origin for your psychosis. That can be Dawkin's next book. The God Psychosis.

Nope, I think when it comes down to it, you're just a prick. Insinuating those who choose to believe must be mentally ill? Go **** yourself.

And Dawkins is a twat who can't even defend his own theories, not too long a top theist scientist challenged him to a one-on-one debate on a radio station and he backed out. He's all talk an no trousers, not mention most of his theories have been destroyed by other scientists.

Anyway I'm done here. I'd rather have my testicles crushed with a sledge hammer than continue a debate with a wanker such as yourself.

 

[Sparta]

Man, after reading Umineko all these arguments seem so silly.

My anime is smarter than Bertrand Russell

Acepilot goes back to hugging his moe body pillow, weeping tenderly into the long, lonely night.

 

[TheDude]

Nope, I think when it comes down to it, you're just a prick. Insinuating those who choose to believe must be mentally ill? Go **** yourself.

And Dawkins is a twat who can't even defend his own theories, not too long a top theist scientist challenged him to a one-on-one debate on a radio station and he backed out. He's all talk an no trousers, not mention most of his theories have been destroyed by other scientists.

Anyway I'm done here. I'd rather have my testicles crushed with a sledge hammer than continue a debate with a wanker such as yourself.

lol. Its been a pleasure my friend. I suppose you can't defend that you aren't mentally ill for believing in an invisible man in the sky who watches your every move. If you want to continue your psychosis and not bring it to light, be my guest. But it'd be for the better that you cured your illness before it robs you of life. Be well.

 

[Mogi67]

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

 

[15357]

lol. Its been a pleasure my friend. I suppose you can't defend that you aren't mentally ill for believing in an invisible man in the sky who watches your every move. If you want to continue your psychosis and not bring it to light, be my guest. But it'd be for the better that you cured your illness before it robs you of life. Be well.

Hey man, not that I don't believe god-worship is a form of metal instability, a delusion of some sorts (kinda like dissent, when you think of it), but you might want to stop being a jerk. No offense, but it looks like you're deliberately trying to insult people.

I use other methods, like being nice, or injecting them with sodium pentathol.

 

[Krynn72]

lol OP is a cookie cutter atheist. Started with the God Delusion? Really? I bet you're a prick about it too.

Oh look, I was right.

 

[Tyguy]

And Dawkins is a twat who can't even defend his own theories, not too long a top theist scientist challenged him to a one-on-one debate on a radio station and he backed out. He's all talk an no trousers, not mention most of his theories have been destroyed by other scientists.

Dawkins backing out of a debate does not make him a twat nor does it debunk any of his claims. If you really want to continue by making baseless accusations then at least provide sources and proof. Your opinion, as well as everyone elses) is worthless without some type of evidence.

Anyway I'm done here. I'd rather have my testicles crushed with a sledge hammer than continue a debate with a wanker such as yourself.

Either admit defeat or substantiate your claims. You are part of the reason why religious threads turn into crap, it's not just the "religious people are stoopid!" members.

Grow up, ignore what should be ignored (insults, etc.) and continue with your reasoning. Most of us really want to hear your side of things even if it sometimes appears otherwise.

 

[Billy Shears]

I am happy to say that I have been a atheist my whole life. I do not believe in any sort of belief. I mean, maybe it has something to do with my home country containing 74% people who do not believe in any sort of concept of God.

 

[CptStern]

what the hell happened to this thread? the discussion was civil the last time I visited

That analogy only works if there is a consequence for believing in a God that does not exist.

A road is a better Analogy. Three people are driving in the mountains. One is sure the road goes to the top of the mountain, one is not sure, and the third claims the mountain top doesn't exist.

Now let us say that the road suddenly ends and there is no mountain. Does the one who thought the mountain existed suffers somehow? No. Regardless of their belief about the road, the journey is over for all three of them. But if the road does go up to a mountain the person who believed in the mountain gets to say "See, I told you," and the one who said there was no mountain will be very surprised to find out he was wrong.

The only negative effect of believing for a moderate believer is being called irrational by the people who claim there is no mountain. If we are wrong it wont matter because we won't exist and the road will end.

oh but there is a consequence; a life wasted. even if it brings inner peace to the person they're still spending time worshipping something that doesnt exist on the remote chance that it does.

ultimately you're correct: it wont matter when we're dead but that's besides the point as most of us are concerned about the here and now

I am happy to say that I have been a atheist my whole life. I do not believe in any sort of belief. I mean, maybe it has something to do with my home country containing 74% people who do not believe in any sort of concept of God.

and where would this magical land be? your name/location implies you live in the beatles/UK, but that's not possible:

A poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a God to be 50%

also:

A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%

 

[The Monkey]

I am happy to say that I have been a atheist my whole life. I do not believe in any sort of belief. I mean, maybe it has something to do with my home country containing 74% people who do not believe in any sort of concept of God.

Estonia?

 

[Shift]

Dawkins backing out of a debate does not make him a twat nor does it debunk any of his claims. If you really want to continue by making baseless accusations then at least provide sources and proof. Your opinion, as well as everyone elses) is worthless without some type of evidence.

Grow up, ignore what should be ignored (insults, etc.) and continue with your reasoning. Most of us really want to hear your side of things even if it sometimes appears otherwise.

Well I wasn't referring to you or some of the others who have posted in this debating, but more specifically to people like TheDude who was deliberately going out of his insult me and those who choose to believe. I have no idea where the 'grow up' comment is coming from though, it seems to me that The Dude was the one being childish, I have a right to stick up for myself.

And you can't seriously expect to list everyone of Dawkins' theories, and the arguments that destroy his theories, all I could do is tell you the books to read, written by other scientists and theologists such as Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis and Egdar Andrews. Read some of the workings of these writers and you see just how baseless Dawkins' theories are. If you are going follow an atheistic view, then take it from someone who isn't a moron.

 

[Absinthe]

Honestly, aside from the argument about theism itself, I'm rather tired of criticizing the various perceptions of Christian gods on this board. For instance, I'd much rather have a discussion about Islam (sand ngrs gunna get whats comin) than the constant retreading that goes on in these topics.

Of course, we can't ever have that discussion because the moment you mention any other religion on this forum, it always gets swung back to Christianity somehow.

 

[Billy Shears]

Estonia?

Goddamit.