Official ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC THREAD

[demandred]

Rivers don't repeat themselves.

Um...

I mean, maybe you're talking about evaporation over the ocean carrying clouds to the highlands which feed rivers, but I don't think you thought that much about this metaphor.

Um...

Rivers pretty much go one way.

smh....

I didnt say anything but I was pretty much thinking the same.

..... heh

 

[BEAM]

You asked 4 questions in the opening post, the first was a two-part question, the second was a question about numbers you can't provide, the third was an evaluating question, and the fourth was a reiteration of the first.

None of them asked "which genre or understanding of 'God' they're opposed to". Why you claim this question was posed initially, I have no idea.

There's nothing for you to explain, unless you can show otherwise.

Look, I already identified this as a personal problem of yours.

The distinction has been made. YOU are the one not seeing it.

I can't help you.

But here's one more attempt. Just because I'm so nice::

With my original inquiry being a two part question, each suggesting a certain type of God with which it is possible to disagree with, consequently asking "which genre or understanding of 'God' they're opposed to" is entirely valid. It's just one question, and not two seperate ones.

But if you don't get it, that's your fault. Not mine.

Okay. Why?

Just like logic attempts to denote the existence of God, it also denotes the plausibility of intra random happenings resulting in everything around us.

The idea that the microscopic intricacies and trillions of intertwined workings and factors just happened to work out this way is unbelievably improbable.

That's why it hasn't been proven.

Bits and pieces in small avenues have.

But there are too many missing links for this theory to be crowned as plausible.

You're trying touse logic to prove something that logic has already deemed to be ridiculous.

A theory is nothing more than a belief.

Whatever you believe to be true is no more correct than what I believe.

You believe that because the existence of God or an Intelligent Designer can't be "proven", then it can't be so.

I believe that because there is no proof that there wasn't an intelligent designer, and with how ridiculous it is to even begin to think that "random chance" could spawn such an awesome result (and that there's no proof of things having happened this way anyway, just theories), that there had to have been some guidance in the beginning.

You're main issue is that you don't believe that anything has the capacity to be entirely beyond Man's realm of understanding. I'm calling Bullshit.

The fact that the Theory of Evolution is at a stand-still is a testament to this.

I believe that Man's capacity is quite limited, and to base all that there is off of what we can understand is insulting and arrogant.

The fact that the Theory of Evolution is at a stand still is a testament to this.

..............................................................

Thanks so much for this.

I'm donehere.

Religion is a taboo subject anyway.

I was foolishf or even bringing it up.

My mistake, and my apologies.

 

[UPTOWN]

I wouldn't say that I "believe" there is no God because to "believe" would imply some sort of faith. I simply do not believe in the existence of a God.

I don't see any evidence (or need) for a divine creator anywhere in the universe. To believe in some heavenly father figure seems like just a way to avoid responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

so how do you explain life, death, and the "afterlife"

 

[demandred]

These threads grow boring after you do them too many times....

 

[TX_Made713]

The truth? And the Bible isn't it? Wow. Talk about oxymoron.

I knew it was a matter of time before you came back. whats up old friend?

 

[BOSS KTULU]

Just like logic attempts to denote the existence of God, it also denotes the plausibility of intra random happenings resulting in everything around us.

The idea that the microscopic intricacies and trillions of intertwined workings and factors just happened to work out this way is unbelievably improbable.

That's why it hasn't been proven.

Bits and pieces in small avenues have.

But there are too many missing links for this theory to be crowned as plausible.

You're trying touse logic to prove something that logic has already deemed to be ridiculous.

You're in way over your head when you make statements like "this world is statistically improbable." Again, consider the vast size of the universe and how many stars and planets there are. The idea that life should arise on at least one of them is not far fetched at all. On toppa dat, you're pulling the probability out of your ass.

A theory is nothing more than a belief.

Whatever you believe to be true is no more correct than what I believe.

So if you believe that a lawn gnome came to life and fathered Barack Obama, that's just as reasonable as believing that he was born in Hawaii to human parents?

All beliefs are not created equal, son. Ones with evidence supporting them are more worthy of acceptance. I don't think this is complicated.

You believe that because the existence of God or an Intelligent Designer can't be "proven", then it can't be so.

Wrong. I believe that since there isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere, I'll continue to not believe in it.

I believe that because there is no proof that there wasn't an intelligent designer, and with how ridiculous it is to even begin to think that "random chance" could spawn such an awesome result (and that there's no proof of things having happened this way anyway, just theories), that there had to have been some guidance in the beginning.

Then you have to explain why the designer exists. All you're doing is moving the problem back one step further.

You're main issue is that you don't believe that anything has the capacity to be entirely beyond Man's realm of understanding.

I don't believe that. Stop pretending you can read my mind.

The fact that the Theory of Evolution is at a stand-still is a testament to this.

There's new research in evolution every day. You have now demonstrated that you are not even remotely familiar with what you are talking about.

I'm donehere.

Yes, you really are.

 

[BEAM]

You're in way over your head when you make statements like "this world is statistically improbable." Again, consider the vast size of the universe and how many stars and planets there are. The idea that life should arise on at least one of them is not far fetched at all. On toppa dat, you're pulling the probability out of your ass.

So if you believe that a lawn gnome came to life and fathered Barack Obama, that's just as reasonable as believing that he was born in Hawaii to human parents?

All beliefs are not created equal, son. Ones with evidence supporting them are more worthy of acceptance. I don't think this is complicated.

Wrong. I believe that since there isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere, I'll continue to not believe in it.

Then you have to explain why the designer exists. All you're doing is moving the problem back one step further.

I don't believe that. Stop pretending you can read my mind.

There's new research in evolution every day. You have now demonstrated that you are not even remotely familiar with what you are talking about.

Yes, you really are.

1. I'm not doubting the possibility of life's possibility given such a vast space. I'm doubting how it's been proposed to have happened, that being entirely "just because".

2. You're trying to use an entirely irrelevant scenario to prove somehting. Fail. The fact that I have no evidence to support that God exists, and that you have no evidence that God doesn't exist, puts us on the same plane of uncertainty. I would go into specifics, but I'm going to take the chance of assuming that your reasoning is at least sub-par, again. Don't dissapoint.

3. That's all fine. But like I said, maybe in the other thread, just because there's no evidence to support it's existence, doesn't mean something doesn't exist at all. You must prove that something doesn't exist before you deem it non-existant. You're trying to say that because you haven't been out-sideof a room yet, then the out-side of the room doesn't exist at all. What horrible and selfish logic. Again, your belief is just as flimsy as mine. You have no proof of anything that denotes anything other than religion. I've said plenty of times that I'm not down with religios depictions of God.

4. I believe the designer exists because I don't believe that we are a result of intra random happenings. I've said this before. There is no proof that everything did happen entirely randomly, just theories that suggest such. No evidence, just bits and pieces of information expanded upon by scientific daydreams.

5. The theory of Evolution is at a significant stand-still. There haven't been any real note-worthy or furthering discoveries in years. It's in the same spot it's been in for the last while. Small steps don't count because most of the recent tib-bits haven't even been connectives building upon anything believed to be so thus far. It's at a fucking stand-still.

Like I said, it hasn't disproved anything other than highly religious views. Until it entirely proves Itself in it's entirety, it's just a theory, a belief. Just like my belief in a higher power.

 

[BOSS KTULU]

1. I'm not doubting the possibility of life's possibility given such a vast space. I'm doubting how it's been proposed to have happened, that being entirely "just because".

"Just because" is the religous proposal, not the scientific one.

2. You're trying to use an entirely irrelevant scenario to prove somehting. Fail. The fact that I have no evidence to support that God exists, and that you have no evidence that God doesn't exist, puts us on the same plane of uncertainty. I would go into specifics, but I'm going to take the chance of assuming that your reasoning is at least sub-par, again. Don't dissapoint.

I have to keep explaining this again and again and again: YOU are the one making the POSITIVE CLAIM. If you don't have evidence for it, we can safely say the claim is FALSE.

To use the court analogy AGAIN, a suspect does not have to prove that they DID NOT do the crime. The prosecution must prove their POSITIVE CLAIM that the suspect did it.

Besides that, I thought we were talking about evidence for the formation of the universe here, for which the naturalistic position has loads of evidence. The half-life of atomic ions, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the chaotic state of the world at the quantum level are all vast swathes of evidence in favor of the idea that the universe formed without any supernatural help.

3. That's all fine. But like I said, maybe in the other thread, just because there's no evidence to support it's existence, doesn't mean something doesn't exist at all. You must prove that something doesn't exist before you deem it non-existant. You're trying to say that because you haven't been out-sideof a room yet, then the out-side of the room doesn't exist at all. What horrible and selfish logic. Again, your belief is just as flimsy as mine. You have no proof of anything that denotes anything other than religion. I've said plenty of times that I'm not down with religios depictions of God.

You're using the same logic Donald Rumsfeld used to support the Iraq war. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is reasoning only dumb Americans would buy. And they did.

4. I believe the designer exists because I don't believe that we are a result of intra random happenings. I've said this before. There is no proof that everything did happen entirely randomly, just theories that suggest such. No evidence, just bits and pieces of information expanded upon by scientific daydreams.

Again, there is a mountain of evidence, from every branch of science, that supports the naturalist position, which you keep stupidly calling "random." Natural selection is not random. That's why it's called selection.

And again, by proposing a designer, you have to explain where the designer comes from. Why is it permissible to you to say that the designer has no origin but the universe must have one? Wouldn't the designer be even more complex and amazing than its creation? Wouldn't that complexity then demand, based on your argument here, that he must have also been designed? You defeat yourself.

5. The theory of Evolution is at a significant stand-still. There haven't been any real note-worthy or furthering discoveries in years. It's in the same spot it's been in for the last while. Small steps don't count because most of the recent tib-bits haven't even been connectives building upon anything believed to be so thus far. It's at a fucking stand-still.

This is something you are simply uninformed about. Pick up any biology journal and see that the field of studying evolution is constantly growing its base of knowledge and refining its ideas. The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a huge step forward in understanding the transition of life from the seas to land. Then there's the growth in the field called Evolutionary Development and many biologists are jizzing all over themselves over new developments in the understanding of Genetic Drift. There's lots going on and you make it quite clear that you are uninformed on this subject.

Like I said, it hasn't disproved anything other than highly religious views. Until it entirely proves Itself in it's entirety, it's just a theory, a belief. Just like my belief in a higher power.

A theory with lots of evidence for it is superior to a hypothesis with none. Your hilarious equivocation of myth with science should embarass you.

You've presented the entirety of your argument for God and this is it, paraphrased: God exists because I am unfamiliar with the arguments for naturalism.

The argument from ignorance. You admit that you do not know how the world could happen naturally, so you fall back on a vague and ill-defined "god." And when I tell you, repeatedly, that there are easily available naturalistic explanations you could examine for yourself, you seem to think I am fibbing.

 

[Shuffington]

sidenote

Abiogenesis: The study of how life could have arisen from inanimate matter.

Evolution: The study of how groups of already living organisms change over time.

continue on...

 

[BEAM]

"Just because" is the religous proposal, not the scientific one.

I have to keep explaining this again and again and again: YOU are the one making the POSITIVE CLAIM. If you don't have evidence for it, we can safely say the claim is FALSE.

To use the court analogy AGAIN, a suspect does not have to prove that they DID NOT do the crime. The prosecution must prove their POSITIVE CLAIM that the suspect did it.

Besides that, I thought we were talking about evidence for the formation of the universe here, for which the naturalistic position has loads of evidence. The half-life of atomic ions, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the chaotic state of the world at the quantum level are all vast swathes of evidence in favor of the idea that the universe formed without any supernatural help.

You're using the same logic Donald Rumsfeld used to support the Iraq war. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is reasoning only dumb Americans would buy. And they did.

Again, there is a mountain of evidence, from every branch of science, that supports the naturalist position, which you keep stupidly calling "random." Natural selection is not random. That's why it's called selection.

And again, by proposing a designer, you have to explain where the designer comes from. Why is it permissible to you to say that the designer has no origin but the universe must have one? Wouldn't the designer be even more complex and amazing than its creation? Wouldn't that complexity then demand, based on your argument here, that he must have also been designed? You defeat yourself.

This is something you are simply uninformed about. Pick up any biology journal and see that the field of studying evolution is constantly growing its base of knowledge and refining its ideas. The discovery of Tiktaalik, for example, was a huge step forward in understanding the transition of life from the seas to land. Then there's the growth in the field called Evolutionary Development and many biologists are jizzing all over themselves over new developments in the understanding of Genetic Drift. There's lots going on and you make it quite clear that you are uninformed on this subject.

A theory with lots of evidence for it is superior to a hypothesis with none. Your hilarious equivocation of myth with science should embarass you.

You've presented the entirety of your argument for God and this is it, paraphrased: God exists because I am unfamiliar with the arguments for naturalism.

The argument from ignorance. You admit that you do not know how the world could happen naturally, so you fall back on a vague and ill-defined "god." And when I tell you, repeatedly, that there are easily available naturalistic explanations you could examine for yourself, you seem to think I am fibbing.

KTULU, I'm growing quite tired of this.

Look.

We're talking about the beginnings of life on Earth, not the beginnings of the universe, or the formation of it.

My point is that it is highly improbable for the basic structures of life (i.e. RNA, amino acids, etc...) to have had all of the necessary components, correspondences and conditions present, permitting, and supporting of the activities it would take to produce life as it exists today. Considering proximity, compatibility, duality at all, the surrounding environment, etc... all of these things would have had to be in complete agreement simultaneously for such to happen, with no guidance or direction, and on top of the spark, the sustaining of whatever sparked. It's just not likely at all.

I know, you're going to suggest that I'm puling it out of my ass. But think about it beyond what you've been told.

It's the equivalent an entirely and seemingly uninterrupted perfect process starting with no initiating factors, but rather that it spawned itself. I just don't buy it is all.

That's not the same as my belief in God, because it's based entirely around logic. Logic can only go as far we make it. Yet the proposal of a supreme being is that it exceeds logic.

That's why I said that you have a problem with things exceeding human capability, because you can't accept the possibility of something existing beyond logic, simply because logic hasn't figured it out yet.

but to return to the point :: I'm not saying Evolution didn't happen.

I'm claiming that we started somewhere, with something powerful and resistant enough to survive, adapt accordingly and in a timely manner, and then possess the necessary components to divide and diverge.

I'm just saying that things probably didn't start here without some pre-activity, or the introduction of something.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be God. That's just what I believe.
It could have been a foreign organism brought here from somewhere else that started everything.

You mentioned a theory with lots of evidence versus a hypothesis with none.

But that's the thing. My belief, or a belief in a God or Supreme Being specifically notes the exceeding-nature of such an entity to exist beyond human capability, i.e. logic.

That's what makes the fact that there is no evidence moot, because evidence in terms of what we can comprehend isn't availability due to the very existence of such a proposed deity being beyond our capability.

Evidence is only necessary in regards to the realm in which logic has access. Supreme Being > Logic.

But said logic hasn't solidified anything close to suggesting the impossibility or non-existence of a Supreme Being. If it had, there'd be no question. All it's done is denote religious beliefs in terms of the story-oriented aspects.

I have a view that doesn't simulate that of science's findings.
But only because what I believe has yet to be addressed by science.

When they prove that there is no God, then okay.

But proof of something beyond proof (in terms of what we can provide and understand) isn't necessary or possible by means of science and human discovery by our own means. It's called Faith. Acknowledgment of Existence =/= Understanding.

Now, I'm done.

You've had your time, which I've considered.
And I hope you've taken me seriously.

 

[BOSS KTULU]

We're talking about the beginnings of life on Earth, not the beginnings of the universe, or the formation of it.

My point is that it is highly improbable for the basic structures of life (i.e. RNA, amino acids, etc...) to have had all of the necessary components, correspondences and conditions present, permitting, and supporting of the activities it would take to produce life as it exists today. Considering proximity, compatibility, duality at all, the surrounding environment, etc... all of these things would have had to be in complete agreement simultaneously for such to happen, with no guidance or direction, and on top of the spark, the sustaining of whatever sparked. It's just not likely at all.

Again, look at the amazing size of the universe, the number of stars and planets, and then consider that even though it would be unlikely for life to arise, the vastness of the cosmos allows for that probability to manifest.

To simplify the math, let's say there's a 1 in a billion chance of life arising on a planet.

Then lets say there's 100 billion planets.

This means chances are that there will be about 100 planets with life on them.

Now consider that there's an estimated 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. (I got this number from a 2008 encyclopedia, I dunno if that number's changed since then) Even if the probability of life arising is very small, it's probably going to happen many times on many worlds.

That's not the same as my belief in God, because it's based entirely around logic. Logic can only go as far we make it. Yet the proposal of a supreme being is that it exceeds logic.

I don't think that proposal exceeds logic. You can have a supreme being that makes logical sense. I never suggested otherwise.

That's why I said that you have a problem with things exceeding human capability, because you can't accept the possibility of something existing beyond logic, simply because logic hasn't figured it out yet.

I actually can accept that possibility, I just don't have reasons to. You keep assuming silly things about me.

You mentioned a theory with lots of evidence versus a hypothesis with none.

But that's the thing. My belief, or a belief in a God or Supreme Being specifically notes the exceeding-nature of such an entity to exist beyond human capability, i.e. logic.

That's what makes the fact that there is no evidence moot, because evidence in terms of what we can comprehend isn't availability due to the very existence of such a proposed deity being beyond our capability.

Evidence is only necessary in regards to the realm in which logic has access. Supreme Being > Logic.

So you're saying your argument is impregnable because it is immune to logic.

In other words, you don't have an argument. You have a demand that your position should be free from logical criticism and any attempt to analyze it doesn't count because "it's magic."

Let's think about this further. If God is outside of the bounds of logic, we can make statements about him that are not logically acceptable but are true nonetheless. The first rule of logic is that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. If A exists, A cannot NOT exist at the same time.

But since God's free from logic, he can both exist and not exist simultaneously, and it's permissible.

So, any statement made about God can be true and false, simultaneously. If this is the case, THERE IS NOTHING MEANINGFUL YOU CAN SAY ABOUT GOD. You can't say it's likely he exists. You can't say he did this or that. Because no matter what you say, it will have absolutely no meaning.

This is why logic is important.

But said logic hasn't solidified anything close to suggesting the impossibility or non-existence of a Supreme Being.

You would have to be ignorant of the entire history of the debate about God to say this. And, coincidentally, that appears to be the case.

When they prove that there is no God, then okay.

Give me an example of what that would mean.

It's called Faith.

Why have it?

Now, I'm done.

You've had your time, which I've considered.

And I hope you've taken me seriously.

I can't take you seriously because you repeatedly make false claims based on an obvious lack of even the most basic knowledge of this subject.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

I knew it was a matter of time before you came back. whats up old friend?

What up my friend? Im good. Just trying to hurry up and finish school so I can move on with my career. Praise God that He is continuing to stir up your heart in order to lead you to Him. God bless you friend.

 

[BEAM]

KTULU, I can't do this with you anymore.

We've gotten into the classic Athiest vs Theist debate.

Neither of this will make the other agree.

I could go on, and I'm sure you could too; but we're just not seeing each others reasoning here.

I mean, I understand yours, but you're not understanding me, because everything you believe is based solely on what we've been able to do and understand to date, which isn't much. The fact that I've proposed anything beyond that at all pretty much solidifies the fact that we're not oignt o see eye to eye.

But for the simple fact that I cannot prove what I believe to be true, I will admit "defeat" peacefully.

I'd still venture to argue that yoiur application of logic leads more towards understanding than simply acknowledging, and that I've never claimed to wield the logic necessary to understand what I believe in. But I do believe that it is very present.

But like I said, since I can't prove it, I'll back down.

Thanks for the convo. ^_^

 

[BOSS KTULU]

I thought you were a deist? You never made your position clear.

 

["A Tout le Mond]

Its good to see the religious nuts are still alive.

 

[And Step]

smh....

..... heh

Don't be too hard on them. They don't understand that Creation is connected and really one.

 

[swadesw]

The truth? And the Bible isn't it? Wow. Talk about oxymoron.

Ur going down the same path as TX yall seem the exact same.... Didt tx have a name imgoing2heavenru

 

[SoulRattler of Venom]

Ur going down the same path as TX yall seem the exact same.... Didt tx have a name imgoing2heavenru

lol that is Imgoingtoheavenru?

 

[marc123]

atheism, all the cool kids are doin' it.

 

[And Step]

I have never met a cool atheist. Only if they are scientists.