Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 7, 2010 at 9:35 am (This post was last modified: May 8, 2010 at 2:56 am by tackattack.)
(May 7, 2010 at 8:31 am)Paul the Human Wrote:
For me, it isn't the lack of evidence for the existence of god(s), so much as it is all of the evidence that points to explanations for things that used to be attributed to god, but that we now know have natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations. Throughout history, some god or another has been touted as the explanation for 'Life, the Universe, and Everything', but scientific inquiry into those very subjects has shown pretty conclusively that god(s) are/were not responsible. In fact, it has been shown that god(s) are not necessary as explanation for anything, really.
Realistically, in the modern era, belief in deities requires faith. In order to believe in god, one must simply believe in god. Trying to use 'god' as the explanation for things doesn't work anymore (except for the stupid), so it all comes down to simply believing what you are told. If no one ever told you there was a god, you would probably not have invented the concept yourself, because there are enough scientific explanations for things these days that inventing god is not necessary.
The bible (I and II) have pretty thoroughly been debunked as myth and are generally accepted as 'allegory' and/or 'metaphor' by a lot of god believers. The source of the myth of 'god' does not stand up to scrutiny. The claims that god is responsible for (list things here) have largely been debunked. What's left? Faith? Why? How is having faith in a supreme being that has never been shown to actually exist a rational belief? How is it any different than believing in pixies and goblins? <-- And there are people that do.
Philosophically, no one can say that they know whether there is a god or not, but I think most atheists can tell you they are pretty convinced that there is not. Considering the things we do know, the existence of an omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent being does not make any sense. To me, belief in such a thing does not make any sense.
Theists like to take the statements of atheists and play semantic games with the definitions of certain words. Don't do that. You theists know what we mean, so stop trying to cloud the issue by redefining what we say. Religious faith = irrational belief. An irrational belief = delusion.
Why do you want there to be a god so badly? Is it the promise of heaven? Is it the fear of hell? Seriously. You obviously want there to be a god. Why? And before you ask why I do not want there to be a god, let me say that I don't care either way, I just do not believe the claims that there is one.
That is the definition of blind faith not religious faith. See here for Arcanus' definition of it, which I completely agree with. I don't worship God for promise of reward or punishment. If evidence surfaced tomorrow that God was completely false I'd probably have a sad day, but I'd be my usual self the next. I don't particularly want anything other than the truth. I'm not playing with words or being overly apologetic, simply trying to reach some common definition so I can see the other side of the issues, and hopefully better articulate my side.
I see no contradiction in omnimax principles. For unanswered point of subjective evidence see here but we should probably decide what's valid and accepted evidence first.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
I didn't mean that you, specifically, were playing word games... only that the theists here (and some of the atheists) tend to do it a lot. As for that definition of 'faith' is concerned... it still seems completely irrational to me. I simply cannot fathom a reason to believe that there is a god of any description. I find the fact that people do believe... astounding. But hey! That's just me! (or is it?)
Well this would definately be the place to discuss that, home terf advantage and all . Anytime I can answer some questions for you please feel free to ask. I'll do my best.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: 3-weak reference to an article I read link I'm no molecular engineer, but DNA could stre a lot of stuff. Oh and the scientific use of the word junk probably correlates to the God of the Gaps for Christianity. It's only junk because we haven't figured out what it's for yet.
Point taken.
(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: 4-So you don't believe in abiogenesis?
No, I don't believe in it. I accept that it's a possible and perhaps plausible theory, but I don't believe in it as a matter of personal trust or intellectual assent.
(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: 5-Are you intentionally being obtuse? There is finite matter in the known universe where the current adaptations of humanity can reach and survive in. In a future where we manipulate our own DNA to live thousands of years and an increase of control of our enviornment and increasing birth rates, is it not obvious that something will have to bend, and I doubt it will be the universe.
No, it isn't obvious. At all. You assume a lot in this paragraph. I was asking how you can assert these things without a point of reference in the world today. I can say we all evolve into ogres and live with talking donkeys, but I would have no way of knowing if that would be true or not.
(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: 6-Sure. Assuming form is limiting; If you had a choice between form and formless existence which would you choose?
I don't know, what would a formless existence feel like?
(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: 7-Then don't play, I don't feel there is any objectifiable proof that God exists.
Then why believe he does?
(May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am)tackattack Wrote: 8-Even a perfect circle isn't perfect atomically. It depends on your perspective. What seems absolute or perfect to humanity at this stage could end up being near perfectwith a different perspective.
You're obfuscating the point a bit. This wouldn't be perfection by human standards. Something that changes to adapt to its surroundings isn't perfect - perfection needs no change. Do you understand?
Paul the Human Wrote:...Trying to use 'god' as the explanation for things doesn't work anymore (except for the stupid)...
More than 80% of Mensa members are believers, and another 7% are agnostic. So who you calling stupid, stupid?
I'm calling people that think that god is the explanation for things like a rainbow or the birth of a baby stupid. I'm calling people that think god created the entire universe in 7 days only 6000 years ago stupid. You twit. Don't be stupid.
(May 7, 2010 at 11:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Uh...that would be roughly 87% of Mensa members. Who's stupid now?
There is a difference between believing in God and believing that he causes everything to happen DIRECTLY. Those looking for an answer to questions like the birth of a baby can believe in God as a prime mover but then seek actual answers to the specific question. Also where did you get those stats?
. Anytime I can answer some questions for you please feel free to ask. I'll do my best.
![[Image: Canadatheist3copy.jpg?t=1270015625]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i945.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad292%2Flukeyboy5%2FCanadatheist3copy.jpg%3Ft%3D1270015625)
