GOD, IF YOU EXIST AND AREN'T AFRAID OF ME, STRIKE ME DOWN OR BE HUMILIATED IN ESREALITY, WHICH IS EVEN WORSE THAN NOT EXISTING!

...

...


guess he's scared of me. Damn straight.

OR BE HUMILIATED IN ESREALITY

Looks like we got ourselves a self-fulfilling prophecy there. Don't think that counts as proof for the existence of god though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

This doesn't work. Here's why.
"Where are these facts proving God does not exist?"

There's never in the history of science been a case of requirement to prove a negative.
That's why no one over the iq of 80 would ever think themselves clever in saying "I'm God. You don't believe me? Well then PROVE I'm not God!".
A moron would get smug here. An intelligent person would laugh at that smug person.

Actually, no. It has nothing to do with proving a negative but with proving a hypothesis you come up with, whatever it might say.

The hypothesis "There is a God" is equally unprovable as "There is no God", meaning believing in either one actually constitutes belief.
Hence the term agnostic for those in the middle.

Actually no.
The hypothesis "There is a God" is equally unprovable as "There is no God", meaning believing in either one actually constitutes belief.

Do you particularly NOT believe in Unicorns? I do. I think there is no such thing as unicorns. I do not believe in Unicorns. Does this mean I have a "belief" that there is no such thing as Unicorns? No. It means I don't believe in Unicorns. The issue is that reality doesn't care what you believe. That's the part theists have so much trouble with, and where they get the nonsense "Not believing is the same thing as believing" rhetoric.

it's true though. It is fundamentally the same in the brain. Whether you want to believe it or not. You can try and justify your answer all you want.

lol.
no.
I don't think that the air I breathe is made of cheese. This isn't a "belief", it's the absence of a belief. There's no reason whatsoever for me to believe that the air I breathe is cheese, so I don't. If there were some reason that I WOULD believe that the air I breathe is made of cheese, then refused to accept it, you'd have something.
But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to think that the air I breathe is made of cheese, so I don't think it is.

How do you know it isn't cheese?

Hey I can think of something and try to fit it into the argument.


Forks can be used to eat cereal. And sharks can fly. I believe they do. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it will.

If you enter a battle of wits with focus and lose then you have some serious fucking problems.

It's not fundamentally the same thing. Does a new born baby hold a belief in the non existence of God? No. Does a new born baby lack a belief in the existence of a God? Yes.

Let's look at something more pragmatic - string theory. I certainly don't 'believe' in string theory due to a lack of empirical evidence, but I also don't actively hold a belief that it is false. It's the most consistent hypothesis and postulates the fewest entities (i.e. occam's razor). Unfortunately there is little more than speculation behind it at this point.

Practical science works on inductive logic, not deductive logic. This is most simply using past evidence with reasoned argument to extrapolate (xerp!) into the future, because that's the best we can do. You see, a practical argument is not a binary 'valid' or 'invalid' but has a level of 'cogency' based on the quality of evidence gathered and the reasoning used. String theory has little cogency due to the lack of evidence. But inductive logic is always provisional. It's called having an open mind.

You see, for any given observed phenomena there are an infinite number of consistent hypotheses to explain it. In science and practical life we use occam's razor, proceeding with the hypothesis that postulates the fewest arbitrary entities.

If we assumed diseases were caused by invisible goblins with mind control ray guns, we would then have the task of trying to find evidence for them. Why go down that road when germ theory is also consistent? So we looked for germs and viola we found them. However, if we still could not find evidence of microscopic organisms today germ theory would be considered pretty much falsified and the next least arbitrary hypothesis would be under testing.

But you see, 'God did it' would be the last hypothesis to be investigated, because 'God did it' is the ultimate in violating occam's razor. 'God did it' is consistant with ANY observable phenomena, but postulates an infinitely powerful supernatural consciousness. It has no real explanatory power. Therefore string theory, though I do not believe in it, is still vastly superior to 'God did it'. 'God did it' garners zero respect from me as a model for explaining anything.

Higgs boson is another entity that I do not 'believe in', but do not disbelieve either. I lack a belief in the higgs boson, even if it is the best hypothesis we have. The LHC will probably find emperical evidence supporting its existance, at which point the argument is vastly more cogent. But for now we wait.

I brushed over a lot here so forgive me for that.

Ok, but then you're whole logic fails. Because you know why? Because if you go waaaaaaaaaaaaay back into human history there was a baby that was born and guess what happened.. beliefs and religion formed. It started some where. Believing is innate. Even without others trying to force a belief on us, apparently we can still question our existence and make up why we are here. Beliefs have become innate.

You're still thinking with a present day knowledge and not with the knowledge known at the time.

Remember beliefs made it possible to form functional groups that survived better together. Any persons who didn't conform would have been cast aside.

I don't deny this. Superstition is natural for us; we are not built for reasoning and logic. It is all too easy for us to fall into logical fallacies, but this is not a virtue. It is something that we should at least try to overcome to the best of our abilities, not strive for.

Of course I'm not saying we should purge all emotion like a vulcan, but critical thinking should be encouraged as it has undeniable practical benifits for investigation and problem solving.

Agnosticism is feeble minded. Are they agnostic over Father Christmas, fairies and the Dragon in my garage? I think not.

exactly.
edit: I don't necessarily agree on the "feeble minded" part but well :p

The hypothesis "There is a God" is equally unprovable as "There is no God"

because there is no god

Is the hypothesis "There is water" as equally unprovable as "There is no water"? no because there's water

I see, someone did his homework.

You have to be theistic to be religious, but you don't have to be religious to be theistic. Are atheists against theism or against religion? From what I can tell, they're against religion, yet they call themselves atheists.

Personally, i'm neither atheistic or theistic. I have better things to do with my time than haggle over something so insignificant. Religion is different, because the morons who power it have such a large impact on everyone's lives.

personal beliefs are one thing, organized religions like mormonism, catholicism are what i have a problem with
particularly areas where there is strict religious law, like saudi arabia or afghanistan
i have no problem with people that consider themselves spiritual or religious moderates, it's fundamentalists that scare me

If you think that the existence of God is insignificant then you are as much an Atheist as anyone.

Are atheists against theism or against religion?

We're not against anything. We lack belief in a supernatural power (or other definition of what a god is). You're fucking stupid for thinking else, but you already proved that by making this thread.

before even clicking here i knew this post would be from either vorpal, jamerio or jonesy

jonesy, being semi-intelligent? WHAT THE FUCK
ok dude, who would win in a fight, Blastoise or Empoleon?

on an even level of 50+ i'd say blastoise would kick his ass!

ok, now on what grounds do you make this statement?
i'm a pretty new pokemon player, i played red and another one years ago, but wasn't serious about it.
didnt' get serious until diamond, and now platinum.
i'd call myself a big fan of empoleon, any reason why i should consider adding a Blastoise to my party?

experience. i got no pokemon bible or anything, i'd just totally go with blastoise!

welp, if he hasn't let you down in the past, then i'd say that's good enough reason

I still want to encourage you to play pokemon gold, one of the best no doubt.

will do, i'll see what i can do about getting a gameboy color, as i'd rather not deal with emulators

Lameboy for DS
Pokemon Platinum Version.gc

Shame they removed the GB/C compatibility in the DS lite.

They're remaking Gold/Silver anyway, so you could perhaps just wait since I expect you'd find Gold/Silver frustrating in comparison to the new games with all the added funtionality to doing stuff quick/easy.

nice!
any word on how soon gold/silver will be released?
i'm gonna get Myst for nds tomorrow, i miss it so much! i still have Riven for my psx

Probably a while :P

I expect they will get released in Japan this Autumn/Christmas, so like a year from now maybe?

Unless they get it out for the summer, in which case it might make Christmas. I don't get it really though, all they need to do is make basic translations which they've already done 10,000 times.

So when will the Pokemon MMO come out?!?!

Sif Nintendo would make THE BEST ONLINE GAME EVER

blasphemy!

ps fuck off polar bear ruiner

???

Why so mean? :(

Gold is the best version by far.

My cart is broke and won't save/store a save :((((

Empoleon sucks mate.

In fact, the water starter pokemon have been disappointing since Totodile in Gold :(

lately, i'd say im a bigger fan of electric or dragon type
that, and whatever type Heatran was in Diamond, he was rape with four legs

The types don't really matter all that much really, it's more important you max out particular stats and give them good moves.

No point having a fighting pokemon with max special attack and special defence. \o/

touche` lol

What? No.

:DD

lol

Quantum Physics makes that scientific logic null, surely?

Very funny though!

if he says he has a baseball, its more likely that he has one, than if he doesn't say it

but if he has it, he can't say how fast it is so it might be flying away :(

funny but

god isn't a baseball. Or maybe, not only.

I think it's meant to attack that method of arguing, not whether a god or little group of fairies exist.

Ye i know, but still...

God if you exists give me a sign in this thread

hi

Atheism is not a matter of belief in the broadest sense of the word... it's the lack of a belief. It's important to distinguish between the two.
Most atheists do not identify themselves as holding an absolute belief in the absense of a deity, but merely lacking a belief due to the lack of supporting evidence. It's a position of practical skepticism, not dogmatism.

Correct. If this were a more theistic leaning site, you'd have to prepare yourself for a barrage of strawman arguments here, but your actual statement here is infallible.

so they believe in the lack of evidence? That there is a belief. Have faith my son.

It's all about being in a particular group.

The lack of evidence is factual, so no belief in it is required, rare in this debate.

Religion does not have as much to do with the existence of God but rather more with that God is involved with human affairs or cares about humanity.

Once you start claiming that "God" has nothing to do with humanity itself, it becomes arbitrary what form God takes. Perhaps, at this point, God could be considered the glue (physical laws) that holds the Universe together. And what difference does it make to humanity?

Large abstractions in this sense are completely outside of debatable logic.

The question remains for the individual whether they want to be judged by an external entity or themselves. As Christopher Hitchens put it, God is like a Divine North Korea. Always watching and waiting for you to make a mistake from which there is no redemption other than slavery and servitude to the throne.

don't really care but that pat condell guy is pretty $$$

"Maybe there is no word for what I am"
ummm...agnostic?

gods n stuff were made up by early humans to comfort them. They finally had the ability to question existence and since they didn't know much, like we do now, they looked to the heavens and just went along with that. Then beliefs formed. Beliefs kept tribes together. Beliefs protected tribes from enemy tribes. If you didn't follow the tribes beliefs you were more than likely killed or cast away. Once you have beliefs, religions came along. Any weird occurance would seem divine back in the day. It must be from some unseen creator. BLAHBLAHBLAH.

I look forward to the day that the theists are the ones being cast away or killed.
If there's no rational explanation for someone believing something, then their intellectual integrity is inherently compromised. It's outright CONDITIONING people to accept something they're told without question. This is ONLY a weakness, and can only be considered a strength by those people that would take advantage of the weakened mind.

remember you're thinking about a topic that was created thousands of years ago with todays knowledge. Not the knowledge from when it was created.

This is an interesting point -- that, intrinsically, wide-spread atheism will be no different than religion today?

I have no spat with religion at all. I believe that each person, at least is true in the USA, has the freedom to pursue whatever makes them happy. However, I believe that religions block a lot of individuality and free-thought. From my experience with religious people (which I think is pretty extensive), a lot of them listen but don't try to understand things that are in direct conflict with their beliefs. Considering this, I think it's a root of intolerance. It's also the root of a lot of ignorance in our society. For instance, Darwin's Origin of Species and what we now consider scientific fact about the origin of our planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe.

I don't think religions have always been cultivating ignorance in the populace, though. In fact, religions have probably been one of the few pillars of intellect through much of human history. It has been the bread and butter for man scholars (and clergy) who sought more answers in the scripture and beyond that brought A LOT of classical philosophy (Aristotle, mostly) to the higher educated of the time. However, when we get to modern philosophies, it changes. We can see, starting with Locke, that empiricism (and in turn science), has become the main pillar that holds up the human intellect.

So if we've got to choose which is best for society: dogmatism towards a belief structure that fosters ignorance or another belief structure that fosters objective and disinterested investigation on all things, I would go with the latter.

Atheism doesn't imply a belief in anything, just the lack of belief in gods.

Don't try, it's pointless.

Also he wasn't really saying that kinda.

I kinda felt what he was saying relied upon that implication being true.

He's trying to say if there was some sort of atheist 'movement' it would end up being similar to religion anyway, I can sorta see his point, I mean look how many people don't understand evolution at all yet still believe it because it's some sciency shit yo, and then they say stuff like "hay we evolved from monkeys lol" even though no biologist has ever ever said that (because it's not true)

I know

who cares

stupid topic seriously

For the record:

"Atheism isn't a belief! It's a LACK of belief."

Is the most retarded statement I've ever heard out of the common atheist camp.

For people who like to rely on the argument that atheists are the "intelligent" ones, they sure don't seem to have a basic grasp on English word choice and other grammar.

Thus, any time I ever hear that statement uttered out of an atheist, I feel confident in the right to completely ignore all other statements because I don't want to deal with stupidity.

Suit yourself :)

You can be atheistic about Zeus while believing in Jesus. Atheists just go one god extra.

Atheism is a belief system like NOT riding a bike is a hobby.

I go to my atheist church with my atheist bible on every Sunday. I'm a believer!

Actually, by DEFINITION, atheism means a lack of belief in god(s). a-theism. The "a" is privative.

lol @ u

You're a fucking moron since you don't even know the definition of atheism.

du di dy du dy, di, lalalala :D

IT IS NOT OKAY MICHAEL!! IT IS NOT OKAY!!..

LMAO

whats with the cat? some kind of new meme?

jep:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml...yboard-cat

HAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT4bsbiReDU

BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FUCKING BIBLE!!!!

ROFL that guy is crazy :D

haha, yeah his vids are excellent :D

crazily joking :)

i stopped reading this post until topic switched to pokemon stuff..

but not beliving in god is similar to this for me:

i give you a chair and tell you, nobody made it, it´s just there..
you wouldn´t belive me...and say something like "somebody must have made it, i´m sitting on it, it is here"

i give you the whole universe..with its galaxies..stars...planets...subatomic cosmos and happenings..complexity way beyond human understanding...and tell you..here god made this. and you reply "nuts! there is no god, nobody made it, it´s just there"

giggle!

peace

Which leads to infinite regression, who made God, who made that God, who is the Gods of Gods? I find it pretty meaningless to think a God created the universe(s) or not. However that is not an argument for theism, only deism. The theist view imo, especially with regards to the great three Abrahamic religions is retarded and easily refutable.

Good argument. Except for the fact that the universe is probably random and a chair isn't.

So your argument, while fundamentally wrong, is self defeating anyway like Marzen pointed out.

Ban religion and gas those fucking bigots and fundies!

Well, not really. Education is the answer and eventually time will erase all the religious stupidity!

Is it any better than theism?

No. It's still jumping to conclusions about things that we obviously do not have any real facts on. In other words, to assume there isn't a god is the same as assuming there is one.

What does gravity say about God?

That there's a physical force that restricts us, similar to how sins are intended to as a spiritual force.

What does evolution say about God?

Misinterpretation of the bible, perhaps? You never know, maybe snakes could talk long ago.

What does homosexuality and abortion say about God?

Well, you could ask the same thing about rape and murder (which abortion is anyways). Besides, these are all moral subjects and can only be discussed in this context philosophically.

lol

I'm confused. You laughed but [+]'d me?

There's not much to argue against evolution aside from beliefs and that "it's just a theory." Like I said, the bible could easily just be misinterpreted and the story of Adam and Eve is solely an allegory.

to assume there isn't a god is the same as assuming there is one.

embarassing

IMO atheism is NOT the lack of belief. I study neuroscience and build on the knowledge of people in the past. Since i can impossible run all their experiments again i never know 100 % it is true. Thus i have to belief them.
The difference is that Theist belief in an old book written by people a long time ago. And somehow what these people have written is truth.
In science there is a constant drift to prove the past wrong, and to increase our knowledge. Even a legend like einstein has been proven wrong on Quantum mechanics.
Theist say: " there is a god." and there are no real arguments to support it.
a scientist says: " this is how it is i think, i have 16 different groups and 2 controls and the experiment has been repeated by 10 people"
Just the fact that it cant be proven god exists is 180 degrees against science. A theory that cannot be proven wrong is NOT a scientific theory.

I belief in science because it accepts changes and offers no unquestionable truth.

Pretty sure you're confusing atheism with agnosticism.

a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

ag·nos·ti·cism (g-nst-szm)
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

lets say god is not a part of the phenomenal world, then it becomes clear why it can or cant be scientifically proven. science is a belief system which is not very different from religion in its principle, science is a belief that something that can't be observed doesn't exist. god couldn't have created the universe if god was part of it. you might say "why do you think there was god to create the universe in the first place?". my answer to that would be because phenomenal world is finite, it has a beginning and it has an end, while god is infinite, god is not part of the universe, god is what created this phenomenal world, a finite universe couldn't have been born out of nowhere because it has a beginning and an end.

Solved

First of all, we don't know that the universe is finite. Secondly, even if it is, why do you assume the creator of the universe is a who and not a what? All you have done here is to put a label of 'God' on something of which we cannot know anything about. It's like the label "dark matter". Nobody knows what dark matter is, we just infer that it is there due to its gravitational effects. People put a label on it so we can refer to it.

If all you can do is infer that the universe must have been created if it had a beginning then congratulations for being able to process simple logic. However, to call it 'God' which has connotations of a supernatural consciousness is retarded. You cannot infer there is a supernatural infinite consciousness just because the universe is finite.

And that's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. If you really want to know what science is, read the demon haunted world by carl sagan

science is a belief that something that can't be observed doesn't exist

Assumption

because phenomenal world is finite

Assumption

it has a beginning and it has an end

Assumption

god is infinite

Assumption

god is not part of the universe

Assumption

god is what created this phenomenal world

Assumption

a finite universe couldn't have been born out of nowhere

Assumption

because it has a beginning and an end.

Assumption

Belief In God: Atheism As Default Position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jciDdmIJpoY

I love it when he flips the coin