(April 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm)Dawud Wrote: I just try to open your mind to the possibility that someone might do something bad because they want to spread atheism - but still you'll deny this:

I get it!

Yes, we all get it. Someone might do something bad. Atheists can do bad things. Christians do bad things. But God knows Muslims win this event.

Dawud Wrote:Can you ever believe that there is no God?

Yes.

Quote:Can you really know that there is no such thing as God?

No. It's just highly improbable.

(April 23, 2013 at 6:40 pm)Dawud Wrote: I thank you very much!

---

I don't want to argue about Stalin...

Just don't want people to deny the possibility and pretend that no-one could ever abuse atheism....

---

No-one would kill in the name if atheism....

Hee-Hee

That's why I do t want to argue about Stalin - people are closed I their minds to even the possibility that some crazy B-might start a campaign to eradicate belief in God from a population.

Hence why I had to get Rhythm to admit that either 1. knowledge that there is no God can lead to many different behaviours depending on the person (including irrational people) or that 2. You can know there is God but it cannot affect a persons behaviour.

He chose 2.

He rests his case with another intellectually redundant insult and now I'm off to bed...

Oh! A midway answer that says atheism cannot affect a person that deeply (as made above). You just have to decide how profound an effect atheism has on people's lives.

I'd suggest its a better option than Rhythm's 'knowing there is no God can have no effect on a person stance'

Well done Rhythm

Kudos!

I'm trying to find why you think this question has so much merit? It appears that you are attempting to assign underlying meaning to the answer. "Does knowledge that there is no God effect a person's behavior?" Sure! In the sense that all knowledge effects our behavior, but I don't see why you are dwelling on the effects of knowing this (as best we can know such a thing).

Knowledge that i'm out of toilet paper effects my behavior.
Knowledge that i'm out of coffee effects my behavior.
Knowledge that my parents are coming to visit effects my behavior.
etc...

What is your point? This seems like a dead-end road to me. What am I missing?

(April 23, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Dawud Wrote: The philosophical default is to not claim k owl edge about God.

The philsophical/metaphysical default is to reflect on one's orgin and existance and the same of one's surroundings.

The individual attempting to explain it SHOULD have a rational explanation based on evidence before it would qualify as an explanation worth considering. Simply invoking an unfalsifiable hypothesis is not an example of a reasonable claim. If the explanation has no reproducible or demonstrative results, and no possible form of verification other than the supposed individual experience of the one making the claim. Then, it would be absurd to accept their explanation. The position of the individual searching for answer should not change from default and continue believing that things are exactly as they were before the supposition of God and continue to search for a better explanation in lieu of having no reason to believe that the question was answered by a God! It's not a belief that God dosn't exist. Its a lack of any reason to entertain such a possibility simply because it cannot be disproved. I remain at the default position of an individual with a question awaiting a good answer.

(April 23, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Dawud Wrote: Psychologically the intuitive habit for humans is to assume that there is an intelligent agent behind our ordered universe...

..and historically fallicious. Because people can give design to things on a small scale on earth, it is fallicious to assume that the earth itself is designed by a higher intelligence. There is no evidence for such an assertion and no data to support that such a thing is probable. We cannot create things from nothing, we cannot only give new form to existing matter. There is no evidence to suggest that this rule is not valid everywhere else. Omnipotence is a crock.

(April 23, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Dawud Wrote: I'm not saying its rationally true but atheist psychologists agree that it seems a pretty human habit to believe in an intelligent creator...

agreed. [EDIT] It is certainly not a rational habit.

If there would be a FACT then there wouldnt be a free will based on faith.
Some belive that there is no God and go to pub to drink till puke.
Others believe that there is God and go to church...
Others search for answer.
Fact would freeze or make world monotone and it wouldnt have free will or any fun for God. People in matrix must choose and facts would ruin everything.
Faith is essential.

(April 24, 2013 at 2:15 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: Some belive that there is no God and go to pub to drink till puke.
Others believe that there is God and go to church...

What of those who believe in God and murder in his name?
What of those who claim they would become sociopathic anarchists if it was proven beyond a doubt that their deity did not exist?
Then there are those who do not believe in God and they live better moral lives than those who have faith in a deity.

"Fun for god"

In religious and simple people camps are good and bad people. Almost everything is corrupted right now.Corruption level differs.
Logically, what reason would be to kill somebody in the name of God?
I think occupants, agressors must have reson to attack so they use God name.
I think God aproves selfdefense, work, giving, forgiving.
Agression comes from demons.

(April 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: Agression comes from demons.

Please tell me you don't mean literal demons. I mean, really.

(April 24, 2013 at 2:30 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: Please tell me you don't mean literal demons. I mean, really.

Meh, it wouldn't surprise me, he isn't the first one on this forum claiming 'demons'. just take a look through the Hall of shame thread.