1730 replies to this topic

[Noitidart]

A) Jake Im not debating anymore then I may have.
B) Don't harp them or poke fun at their religion.

[luvsmyncis]

Noit you can talk neutral when you are clearly picking a 'side' with Tigerwoods and Finale. What I got out of your post is that a) non-believers are mis informed and b) we are harping them and poking fun at their religion.

Come on now. Don't target Noit. It's like putting a KICK ME sign on someone's retarded kid brother. It just feels wrong to me. 



Anyway, no shit he took their side. They share the same beliefs, just like you'd tend to lean towards the arguments of people who share your views. Believers are always going to think non-believers are misinformed and vice versa. As for poking fun and harping, it's a matter of opinion. It's hard for people not to take these sorts of debates personally, even for the atheists. Most people end up feeling judged for what they do and don't believe in.

[Puppetmaster]

Also have to add as a message to everyone: No bashing of other religions or beliefs.

Well, I think there's quite a bit of borderline offensive terms being thrown about. For example, I know I read "you atheists" on several occasions. Now, someone were spouting out "you Jews", for example, the shit would hit the fan. How is that any different?

Edited by Puppetmaster, 12 August 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[Noitidart]

You're right puppetmaster. "You jews" shouldn't be offensive.

Anyways im posting here to say sorry to jake for bugging him. We're talking over PM I just want to let everyone know I love jake and everyone here!

Like I said to Jake in PM. This topic aside. It's hard to debate when I don't have the understanding/knowledge you have of your side and you don't have the understanding/knowledge of my side. You know what I mean? Then things get understood weirdly by the other side. Like is happening. I love you all!

Party at my place. No clothes! No alcohol though sorry guys!

[Jake]

It's cool Noit my apologies as well for getting all serious and worked up. It's just not my nature... so lets bang a couple bitches at your place mmk?

[Noitidart]

Hahah the bich is already here get on irc!!

[Sumgirl]

I believe in God, don't hate me for it.

[Lallard]

Thread was tl;dr.

I went to a Catholic school from pre school to about middle school, I do go to church regularly...so long story short I strictly practice my religion.

As much I'll probably get killed for this I do think that religion only exists to serve as a basis of morals/ethics. I'll say that sure, there is absolutely no concrete scientific evidence of a "God", but on the contrary there really isn't anything that concretely disproves that entity's existence either.

My opinions might've already been mentioned previously, so my apologies for that. Otherwise there's my opinion in a nutshell ^^

[sonic]

were the fuck is dang fucking text me asshole

and just for noit..

[EzioAuditore]

Yes, I do believe, because aside from faith, more than one of the things in the bible have been proved by science that they happened (Like the splitting of the red sea by Moses).


Anyways, I don't like to debate this because it comes down to opinion. It's essentially the same debate as Evolution and I have debated on this for classes in College too many times to want to start again.

[redlion]

There are actually two kinds of atheist and two kinds of theist.

Those who believe they are right because of facts, and those who believe they are right because of faith.

You can't argue with faith. I mean you can, but it won't get you anywhere. Convincing a christian they aren't saved by faith alone is like convincing a dog not to sniff butt.

However, it is possible to argue/debate facts. Facts about the bible, facts of scientific history (young earth/old earth, etc) facts about religious leaders, facts about the influence of one religion on another, and so on.

Also, if it hasn't been said already, this thread has a horrible title. I mean it's strait forward enough, but it just doesn't provide grounds for debate.

[Jake]

Reasonable atheists don't declare there being no god, gods, entities etc. Just that there probably isn't. No one is ever going to know, not until they die, but even then maybe not because you may just cease to exist.

[Grizzly]

i have long stayed out of this topic as I don't really think debating politics or religion ever leads to anything truly productive. However, I'm going to ask this of atheists as I truly do not understand.

But first, some background. I was raised Roman Catholic and by ~13 I had denounced the church and lost my faith entirely. I felt/feel that the church was using fear and "tradition" to manipulate innocent followers and so I began to question everything. I sometimes had wanted to label myself an atheist, but never could find that to be true... Agnostic was truly where I was at.

I have since separated the concept of spirituality and religion in my mind. This has brought me great peace of mind and being. I have been able to explore consciousness and the essence of human suffering without (or with minimal) bias. I won't bore you all with the pillars of my spirituality as I feel spirituality is something we should all develop seperately so that one of our wills can not manipulate or pursuade anothers view. My entire concept of faith had been destroyed by the catholic church and I'd hate to see that practice perpetuated.

Now on to my question.

How can you, with absolute certainty declare that there can not be god/higher power? Look simply at the probability of a universe being created where life can be supported. Estimated at 10^10^123. Although I wouldn't take something like that to PROVE a god exists... I could also not in good faith proclaim that a god can not/does not exist.

I guess I can understand the perspective of an agnostic... But I can't figure out the logic in the firm belief that a god can not exist.

If you must have a general idea of my current religious views, it's a bit of a cross of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. At least those are the theological backings that I see the most similarities to.

I come from the same background, sorta. I was born Buddhist but raised PResbyterian Christian but I denounced my church at a pretty young age. I felt like they were trying to brain wash me and I wasnt having any of it. The difference was that, at that moment I dropped all concept of gods, spirituality, theism, agnosticism, whatever, and declared myself a nihilist. This is where it gets tricky with the diction, and I know sometimes agnosticism and nihilism are compatible, but it sounds to me like you're rejecting nihilism altogether, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of "spiritualism".

If I were younger, I would try to deny the existence of your spiritualism, but now I understand that to be a fancy word for self-awareness. But just like how you see a dichotomy between spiritualism and religion, I see one between spiritualism and existentialism. I believe the question of the universe boils down to science and nothing more, nothing within us. It's pretty damn conceited (but expected) of humans to believe that the answer lies within us but thats a load of horse shit to me.

I do admire that you've educated yourself in different religions. Too much do I see people born into religion and blindly accepting it as the universal truth, but at least you've taken an academic, educated, and logical view on the topic. Me? I've educated myself in philosophy and cognitive science, and I hope I dont offend you in saying so but it has led me to believe that both atheism and agnosticism are half-assed excuses of a response to the Question here.

[Waser Lave]

How can you, with absolute certainty declare that there can not be god/higher power? Look simply at the probability of a universe being created where life can be supported. Estimated at 10^10^123. Although I wouldn't take something like that to PROVE a god exists... I could also not in good faith proclaim that a god can not/does not exist.

I'll leave this one to Sweeney:

Atheist and Agnostic aren't different levels of belief.
Theist/Atheist are the statements of position: acceptance of God, or not.
Gnostic/Agnostic are statements of knowledge: Knowing, or not.

Most theists are gnostic theists; they claim to know that there is a God (or more than one).
By comparison, most atheists are agnostic; they don't claim to know that there is no God, simply that there probably isn't, but we can't know for sure.

Holding a gnostic position on either side of the fence is equally irrational.

[Waser Lave]

How does religion explain all the other planets that have been created (and the possibility of other life if we ever do find it)? God created our planet, but there is nothing regarding the rest of the universe.

I discussed that with a Jehovah's Witness once which led him to quote a passage from the Bible which he said showed that the Bible contains knowledge which was otherwise unknown at the time, in this case that the earth is a sphere and not flat:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)

Until I pointed out that a circle is not a sphere and is indeed 2-dimensional...he left soon after that.

[Noitidart]

were the fuck is dang fucking text me asshole

and just for noit..

hahahaha thanks dude bro i remember that guy!

[Sweeney]

Yes, I do believe, because aside from faith, more than one of the things in the bible have been proved by science that they happened (Like the splitting of the red sea by Moses).


Anyways, I don't like to debate this because it comes down to opinion. It's essentially the same debate as Evolution and I have debated on this for classes in College too many times to want to start again.

You make me sick.

You have scientific evidence that Moses parted the Red Sea? Share it then, don't hold back. You've probably got a Nobel in physics coming your way.

And the Evolution "debate" is not a question of belief. If you don't accept evolution, you're either extremely stupid, horribly misinformed, woefully ignorant, or you have a vested interest in denying it.

[Noitidart]

Come on guys lol

Lets keep it nice please.

[luvsmyncis]

I discussed that with a Jehovah's Witness once which led him to quote a passage from the Bible which he said showed that the Bible contains knowledge which was otherwise unknown at the time, in this case that the earth is a sphere and not flat:
Until I pointed out that a circle is not a sphere and is indeed 2-dimensional...he left soon after that.

Through pure laziness, my family discovered if you leave your outside door decoration of Santa Claus up all year, the Jehovah's Witnesses won't come knocking. They avert their eyes and leave. It doesn't stop the Mormons, though.

Come on guys lol
Lets keep it nice please.

Shut up, monkey-boy.

[EzioAuditore]

You make me sick.

You have scientific evidence that Moses parted the Red Sea? Share it then, don't hold back. You've probably got a Nobel in physics coming your way.

And the Evolution "debate" is not a question of belief. If you don't accept evolution, you're either extremely stupid, horribly misinformed, woefully ignorant, or you have a vested interest in denying it.

Parting of the Red Sea: http://www.catholic....ew.php?id=20866

It was a documentary shown on the History Channel a few years ago. It doesn't mean that Moses parted the sea, but that it was at one point and time split right down the middle.

And Evolution is a debate so long as there are people who don't believe that it exists.

I never said that I don't believe in evolution, I said that I don't like to debate it because as much as it is fact, a lot of hard headed Christians don't like to believe it.


I know evolution is real, I studied biology and know all about Charles Darwin and the finches, along with how evolution works.


Maybe you should re-read my post before you make more ASSumptions about my stance on the things that I posted in here.

[Sweeney]

Parting of the Red Sea: http://www.catholic....ew.php?id=20866
It was a documentary shown on the History Channel a few years ago. It doesn't mean that Moses parted the sea, but that it was at one point and time split right down the middle.

"Suggesting that the biblical reference to the "Red Sea" is actually a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew word which meant "Reed Sea" – a now-dried body of water – he hypothesizes that the seismic activity caused by the earthquake may have temporarily raised a land bridge for safe passage and the pursuing Egyptians were the unfortunate victims of perfectly-timed tsunamis approaching from the Mediterranean."

Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me. Certainly nothing like "proved by science that they happened".
Besides, if you're willing to stretch, rearrange, and reinterpret the accounts of the Bible that much, just to make it fit with accepted history, you may as well just dump it altogether. It's meaningless.

And Evolution is a debate so long as there are people who don't believe that it exists.
I never said that I don't believe in evolution, I said that I don't like to debate it because as much as it is fact, a lot of hard headed Christians don't like to believe it.
I know evolution is real, I studied biology and know all about Charles Darwin and the finches, along with how evolution works.
Maybe you should re-read my post before you make more ASSumptions about my stance on the things that I posted in here.

Maybe you should learn the meaning of the word "if".
I would also be willing to bet that your understanding of evolution is shallow at best, but that's a pointless aside.

[EzioAuditore]

"Suggesting that the biblical reference to the "Red Sea" is actually a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew word which meant "Reed Sea" – a now-dried body of water – he hypothesizes that the seismic activity caused by the earthquake may have temporarily raised a land bridge for safe passage and the pursuing Egyptians were the unfortunate victims of perfectly-timed tsunamis approaching from the Mediterranean."

Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me. Certainly nothing like "proved by science that they happened".
Besides, if you're willing to stretch, rearrange, and reinterpret the accounts of the Bible that much, just to make it fit with accepted history, you may as well just dump it altogether. It's meaningless.


Maybe you should learn the meaning of the word "if".
I would also be willing to bet that your understanding of evolution is shallow at best, but that's a pointless aside.

And if you actually watch the documentary, they explore the bottom of the sea floor to see if something like that actually could have happened, which they stated is very likely from the way the floor has been shaped.


Also, what do you care about how knowledgeable I am in the likes of evolution? I said it exists and it will only be classified as a debate so long as people don't want to believe it, just like any other debate.

[EzioAuditore]

No offense taken, Grizzly. I agree with you, though I can at least understand the position of an agnostic.

Also, thanks Joe on showing the differences in theism and Gnosticism. Never really gave that a distinction but it is very valid. Although I don't personally prescribe (not outright reject) the existence of a omniscient, omnipotent being that created us. I also can not see the logic in denying the existence out right.

Fuck it... I'll touch on my "spiritual beliefs" for a moment.

What's the difference in you and the moon? Or you and me? Aren't we all simply variations of basic atomic material? (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.) when you look at everything in it's absolute most basic state, we are all made of the same thing. Everything on earth is. Therefore, I am of the belief that "god" or really as a better description, Brahman, is simply energy/matter. Therefore, You are god to me. I am god. The earth is god. The bees are god. We are all variations of the same basic particles. Instead of looking for the differences and dividing us by differences, I aim to look for similarities.

This. Belief system really does hold true to most of the common themes underlying within most religions. Do unto others as you would have done to you essentially. Don't harm others. Blahblahblah. But when you see every one and everything as a "manifestation" of god... You treat everything as you would god... Including yourself!

I don't wanna ramble any more... But I like it as I try to find the things that ring "true" to me amongst all religions and science and integrate it to look for the bigger picture.

Blahblahblah. </rambling>

IIRC this video: http://www.stumbleup...v%3D0ca4miMMaCE

Explains how through the 10th dimension particles form and that's how matter is created, also called the String Theory.

Trippy video btw.

Edited by EzioAuditore, 23 August 2010 - 07:36 PM.

[Sweeney]

And if you actually watch the documentary, they explore the bottom of the sea floor to see if something like that actually could have happened, which they stated is very likely from the way the floor has been shaped.

A documentary is not a scientific research expedition.
The film makers went there with a view to confirming their ideas, not subjecting them to critical analysis.

What's the difference in you and the moon? Or you and me? Aren't we all simply variations of basic atomic material? (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.) when you look at everything in it's absolute most basic state, we are all made of the same thing. Everything on earth is. Therefore, I am of the belief that "god" or really as a better description, Brahman, is simply energy/matter. Therefore, You are god to me. I am god. The earth is god. The bees are god. We are all variations of the same basic particles. Instead of looking for the differences and dividing us by differences, I aim to look for similarities.

This. Belief system really does hold true to most of the common themes underlying within most religions. Do unto others as you would have done to you essentially. Don't harm others. Blahblahblah. But when you see every one and everything as a "manifestation" of god... You treat everything as you would god... Including yourself!

I don't see, Cody, why you can't just follow the Golden Rule without feeling the need to ascribe unnecessary spiritual attributes to matter and energy.
It's just calling matter by a different name, overcomplicating a situation without adding any real meaning or discernable benefit.

[Sweeney]

I suppose it's just that now I (try to) treat everyone/everything and myself with the highest respect and love.

Where as before.... Not so much...

Definitely not attempting to push my views on anyone... About the last thing I'd like actually. Just giving some
Insight into my newly found "spirituality".

I think attributing that to some kind of spiritual revelation demeans your efforts.
You're making an effort to be a good person, because you're a good person. Nothing more, nothing less.