Atheism/Theism thread

[adlp]

watch out everybody i think the discussion in this thread is proof that God isn't real can someone please contact the Associated Press for a story so everybody in the world can read this and face the fact that God's existence has been disproven on a flash game internet forum

[Choofers]

mormonism is the laughing stock of the religious community, try again.

[t-rogdor]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

oh, so it's *Dawkins* who's the shitty one here

nah dude that guy's a real piece of shit holy hell

I dunno man I just get bad vibes from Dawkins. Maybe it's just the fact that I can't stand his writing who knows ~_~

[adlp]

@choof yeah alot of people don't like us because we dont fit the mold of traditional christianity. we are very different in some aspects especially in our beliefs of the properties of God

but this is just an atheism vs theism not presbitarian properties compared to mormon properties of God so im just skimming through everybody's comments

[JJTrixX]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

You can do both. Why must it be one or the other?

Can you really do both as effectively? For example: Where do you base your morals/values/virtues from? Science? Experience? Personal Observation? Collective sociological norms based on historical pros and cons? Would that require you to put your trust(faith) in human thought or your own thought for that matter? Are humans not born of flaw? Are we not born of tempation and deception? Are we not susceptible to mistakes or even lies and manipulation to ourselves and each other? To put your trust in man or even your own mind above a higher being is scientifically a form of individual seperation and hightened egoism. Do you not believe that we are all universally connected. Even Einstein tried explaining this through the theory or relativity.

A mass portion of the most intelligent scientists in the world believe in the possibility of a higher being as most atheists do. You don't discredit one exists, you just choose to say that you don't believe in one when hypocritically your actions prove otherwise in particular events throughout your life. It is a choice based on image and pride, rather then meaning and understanding.

I personally do not claim to be of any religion because i do not have faith in any religion. I don't focus on any current human-ran establishment because that is not the focus of God's message. I believe in Jesus Christ and God's message spoken through him and his apostles. I don't know if you read the Bible or not, but if you did, then even strictly as a scholar, you would agree with many if not all of its morals and messages on how to be a good person and live a good life.

You say you never needed the principles of the Bible to understand love and meaning. I say you are naive because those very principles such as love meaning and understanding came to you because of the Bible. The message was shared to you by others through actions based on the principles of the Bible and not verbally expressed to you as the love of God so of course you wouldn't recognize God as the 'source'. I understand why you would claim atheism, but in the end, words are just words and actions speak louder.

[Reincarnate]

I think Dawkins shows an amazing amount of restraint when you consider how disgusting the people are he debates

^This is 10x funnier when you look into what Haggard was caught doing

There are no words

[Choofers]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Can you really do both as effectively? For example: Where do you base your morals/values/virtues from? Science? Experience? Personal Observation? Collective sociological norms based on historical pros and cons? Would that require you to put your trust(faith) in human thought or your own thought for that matter? Are humans not born of flaw? Are we not born of tempation and deception? Are we not susceptible to mistakes or even lies and manipulation to ourselves and each other? To put your trust in man or even your own mind above a higher being is scientifically a form of individual seperation and hightened egoism. Do you not believe that we are all universally connected. Even Einstein tried explaining this through the theory or relativity.

A mass portion of the most intelligent scientists in the world believe in the possibility of a higher being as most atheists do. You don't discredit one exists, you just choose to say that you don't believe in one when hypocritically your actions prove otherwise in particular events throughout your life. It is a choice based on image and pride, rather then meaning and understanding.

I personally do not claim to be of any religion because i do not have faith in any religion. I don't focus on any current human-ran establishment because that is not the focus of God's message. I believe in Jesus Christ and God's message spoken through him and his apostles. I don't know if you read the Bible or not, but if you did, then even strictly as a scholar, you would agree with many if not all of its morals and messages on how to be a good person and live a good life.

You say you never needed the principles of the Bible to understand love and meaning. I say you are naive because those very principles such as love meaning and understanding came to you because of the Bible. The message was shared to you by others through actions based on the principles of the Bible and not verbally expressed to you as the love of God so of course you wouldn't recognize God as the 'source'. I understand why you would claim atheism, but in the end, words are just words and actions speak louder.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Granted, his wording is sometimes a bit confrontational but both have a way of speaking in this particular vid. I think it's two egos going against eachother trying to sup eachother in this particular video, one based on ignorance (Wendy Wright) and one based on arrogance (Richard Dawkins). Personally I find Wendy Wright more annoying in this video than Dawkins though. Her smug faces and the misconceptions she keeps hammering on are quite annoying.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Can you really do both as effectively? For example: Where do you base your morals/values/virtues from? Science? Experience? Personal Observation? Collective sociological norms based on historical pros and cons? Would that require you to put your trust(faith) in human thought or your own thought for that matter? Are humans not born of flaw? Are we not born of tempation and deception? Are we not susceptible to mistakes or even lies and manipulation to ourselves and each other? To put your trust in man or even your own mind above a higher being is scientifically a form of individual seperation and hightened egoism. Do you not believe that we are all universally connected. Even Einstein tried explaining this through the theory or relativity.

Our morality comes from secular means (societal evolution). I don't need God in order to know that stabbing someone in the face when I am angry is wrong.

Take murder/stealing, for example. You don't need God for that. As we evolved, people that murdered and stole from each other didn't last very long -- they don't form stable societies. Ultimately, the people that manage to come out on top are the ones that learn to cooperate.

I'm sure you've heard of Prisoner's Dilemma, where we can talk about iterative games and the relative tradeoffs of mutual cooperation vs. mutual defection vs. asymmetric payoffs. The guys that learn to cooperate, in the long run, are far better off.

Ever heard of tit-for-tat? It's basically the "golden rule" -- do unto others, etc. It works amazingly well and yet, no religion required. Just simple game theory.

If you want to see a video on this topic:

Also

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

A mass portion of the most intelligent scientists in the world believe in the possibility of a higher being as most atheists do. You don't discredit one exists, you just choose to say that you don't believe in one when hypocritically your actions prove otherwise in particular events throughout your life. It is a choice based on image and pride, rather then meaning and understanding.

"You don't believe in the Peanut Butter Demon, right? You acknowledge such a thing could exist even though you don't believe in it, right? So how come you aren't eating one jar each day to show thanks to His Butterness? Your actions prove you wrong!"

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

You say you never needed the principles of the Bible to understand love and meaning. I say you are naive because those very principles such as love meaning and understanding came to you because of the Bible.

Uhhhh, no they didn't, dude. Love is something born forth out of evolution. It has existed far longer than the Bible.

[goose_goldwing]

If god made us, and we are all his children, yet we are the ones responsible for making the first of any book ever made on earth....explaining his presence in a bible, then why did God wait so long, after creating us, to inform us of this why and how in terms of life? Where was this proof of existence, written or exemplary by others, before it has became world-known throughout a published novel? It should have been used as a verification in our beliefs, and not merely as a correction in the modern religion at the time. People would have had to know about the profit Jesus, and his connection to God before reading the bible to be a true 'believer', yet this book was none only but a means of conversion. Did he abandon us preceding the opening of Pandora's box? And if not, why would he not warn us of this evil presence to any who deserved it? Why did we only deserve a profit after years of false praise? Would he have not given up on those individuals, much like Adam and Eve, instead of making a new religion? And why didn't any high priest of any prior religion to Christianity has had documented facts or beliefs? Religion cannot simply be passed down from generation to generation only by means of preaching and praise. It's non other then the belief of fictional stories passed down and modified, changing each time someone has a different view on what god is based on ancestral beliefs. We all have questions of faith and religion, you'd think that the answers of tough questions would be documented, and the stories that are passed down are being documented in some way as verification. If the only story that has been true and unmodified existed in a documented format that humans have created, it raises questions about what important information god wishes to inform us of. Is the bible simply a witness to fictional stories? Would god not explain the false hope in other religions? Would it not contain much more information then a mere book, documenting where humans have gone wrong in each case? I am here to answer some of these questions.

God, whether he/she/it is real or not, demands praise, in the same way others hailed Caeser and those before him. God demands equality, yet the ones responsible for Pandora's box was given to two individuals. And now, the entire race of his children must suffer for the mistake of these two individuals. Not only is this unfair, and unequal to those newborns, who have not had the chance to live in God's perfect world without evil, but this still doesn't explain the evil within the disobedient individuals. Adam and Eve, who has went against God's wish of not opening this box should be considered evil, and not an innocent act. Curiosity is not an evil emotion, yet disobeying God's wishes is considered evil. Breaking any commandment is considered wrong/bad, and thus evil. They had only 1 commandment to obey, which was to not open this box, which led to the other commandments that we now know today. So there must have been some evil present in order to break God's 1 and only rule. Suffering the mistakes of those before us is not anything close to equality...and this idea of 'heaven' would be the world as it was before they have opened Pandora's box. This heaven can only exist if we, as individuals, can travel to a distant time before this mistake was made. In a fair manner, we should have been given the same chance to 'live' in his perfect image, instead of having to acquire or earn the right to exist in it, unlike both Adam and Eve. Still, more questions are raised about heaven...like, was Adam and Eve first created on Earth, or in Heaven? Did the opening of the box create earth after God's perfect world, heaven, has been swarmed with evil? Is heaven inaccessible to us now that it is opened? Or did Adam and Eve first live in Heaven, and those born on Earth by both Adam and Eve, have no chance of returning to heaven. In any case, this does not represent equality, and god should specify what our purpose on this earth should be.

Now, in terms of the idea's stated above, God should have, to be fair and equal, at least stated somewhere, the history of their fellow brothers and sisters before them, in a way that his children can understand and interpret with one another. We had no warning or previous knowledge of the world before Pandora. We have created this religious view of Christianity, because it did not exist before Jesus' era. There should have been written evidence of a profit to save our souls before the profit entered our world. At the very least, it should have been rumored or preached by others who did believe in that God. However, no one did believe in this God until the presence of Jesus, which resulted into a bible after his death, thus, God made very little effort to make his presence as the Father/Mother/Creator, without any evidence of this being the rightful faith to praise to...until after Jesus has died for our souls of course. God is the jealous type. You would think that he would make it more obvious to what religion is correct, or at least curse/smite/strike down those who opposed him in such an insulting manner to put it on paper and distribute it around the world. This was not the case, god has failed in terms of being the almighty one, allowing blasphemy to exist without any consequences, even in his own name. This goes for any religion....whether it was before 0 B.C or after it. Evidence of his existence would be sufficient in terms of belief, but there is too much evidence pointing to more and more controversial questions about god and his place in our world. If he existed this whole time, setting all these rules to obey, and claims to only punish those in the afterlife, without any proof of any afterlife...maybe he only exists in the afterlife. So thus, there is no god in our present world, meaning there is also no religion. His absence in this world in terms of proof and verification, may suggest that the bible is simply nothing more then a guide to discover god in the afterlife. Until your soul does travel to the other world, where you can really communicate with god, questions and answers, with proof of his existence and the history before him, there is really no way you can confirm god's presence in our world. We have found ways to control emotions in the brain, so that we can technically make someone more lovely or more aggressive, by modifying nerves with stimulus...making him/her do certain things. This does not make them evil or good, and it simply disproves god's gift of freewill upon us, therefore, you can't believe everything you hear. In conclusion, that's why they made a bible.

[gnr61]

dawkins is a cool guy. definitely smug as hell at times, but i actually enjoy most of his writings and appreciate him as a popular figure

and mormonism isn't all that much more far fetched than other, more popular religions/sects. it's a function of its relative youth more than anything that it's a common object of ridicule. however, you'll probably notice that hardly anyone is trying to 'disprove' god--the very concept of god (or fairies, or space tigers) is not disprovable. what they're saying is that it makes no sense to believe in such a concept unless there is convincing physical evidence for it (ie consider where it is appropriate for the burden of proof to fall)

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Can you really do both as effectively? For example: Where do you base your morals/values/virtues from? Science? Experience? Personal Observation? Collective sociological norms based on historical pros and cons? Would that require you to put your trust(faith) in human thought or your own thought for that matter? Are humans not born of flaw? Are we not born of tempation and deception? Are we not susceptible to mistakes or even lies and manipulation to ourselves and each other? To put your trust in man or even your own mind above a higher being is scientifically a form of individual seperation and hightened egoism. Do you not believe that we are all universally connected. Even Einstein tried explaining this through the theory or relativity.

A mass portion of the most intelligent scientists in the world believe in the possibility of a higher being as most atheists do. You don't discredit one exists, you just choose to say that you don't believe in one when hypocritically your actions prove otherwise in particular events throughout your life. It is a choice based on image and pride, rather then meaning and understanding.

I personally do not claim to be of any religion because i do not have faith in any religion. I don't focus on any current human-ran establishment because that is not the focus of God's message. I believe in Jesus Christ and God's message spoken through him and his apostles. I don't know if you read the Bible or not, but if you did, then even strictly as a scholar, you would agree with many if not all of its morals and messages on how to be a good person and live a good life.

You say you never needed the principles of the Bible to understand love and meaning. I say you are naive because those very principles such as love meaning and understanding came to you because of the Bible. The message was shared to you by others through actions based on the principles of the Bible and not verbally expressed to you as the love of God so of course you wouldn't recognize God as the 'source'. I understand why you would claim atheism, but in the end, words are just words and actions speak louder.

Morality is not formed by religion, but adapted. It's a matter of action and consequence. If you steal from someone who's worked hard for something, he'll get angry and might do something harmful to you. Conclusion: Don't steal.

Believing in a deity is fine btw, as long as it does not influence your work or anyone else's lives. Proper way of assessing believability though, is calculating the chances of whether or something is true or not. A lot of people have different degrees of certainty for different subjects, but nobody can be absolutely certain of anything. That doesn't mean you can't assume something based on repeatable and observable phenomenon.

I have read the bible (although not fully, I admit), but they're more or less common sense stories rather than the origin of morality. Not to mention, the bible has a lot of moral standards that are considered outdated/wrong in today's time. Morality is current society's values, not rules written down in a 2000 year old book.

Care and nurture for your children for example has its roots in basic biology. If you care for your children, they will grow up and increase your chance of passing on your genes, and perhaps even care for you in the end when you're on your deathbed. Nowadays caring for your parents when they are unable has become somewhat of a standard but that wasn't as given for early humans (or many other animals for that matter). It's a developed morality with its roots in biology and instinct for survival/comfort.

[Choofers]

how do i delete your posts

[adlp]

you dont

[Reincarnate]

i don't understand, is that supposed to be funny

[JJTrixX]

Dawkins says he want a morality that can be discussed reasoned and so on based on "itelligent design". Yea that sounds good to a viewing audience being mindful and respectful to his response and so they clap as a reaction to the very first bias atheist who initiates the clap with intent of social support, but by who? Who will be this group of deciders who reason and discuss what the new form of morality will be? Who will be this new spokesperson for this so called 'intelligent design'? No man will be more perfect nor lacking of sin nor more loving then he who is Jesus Christ, the son of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped to perform every good work.

[adlp]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

i don't understand, is that supposed to be funny

seems there is a lot of things that you don't understand

[gnr61]

hahah its funny bcause u guys obv have a complex where u think uve disproved something as big as god on ffr like get over yourselves for real ur not that smart bros god is a tough subect to crack

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by adlp

seems there is a lot of things that you don't understand

enlighten me

[adlp]

oh Shit did i just get Called Out