Atheism/Theism thread

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I look forward to continuing my one life that I have. But as a religious person who believes in an after life as the ultimate goal you would be the one that has nothing to look forward to except death. Might as well kill yourself.

lol, I've brought this argument up before so many times and I've never gotten an answer.

Originally Posted by Izzy

I wonder how many generations more until this virus is finally the minority. It has got to be dwindling fast, at least in 1st world countries with high tech communications systems.

There's no way to tell if I will be right (in this generation) but I don't think religion will ever go away entirely -- I think "minority," as you put it, will be accurate. The US is just a little behind the curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[Dorby]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

lol, I've brought this argument up before so many times and I've never gotten an answer.



There's no way to tell if I will be right (in this generation) but I don't think religion will ever go away entirely -- I think "minority," as you put it, will be accurate. The US is just a little behind the curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

It's interesting that increased wealth is deemed a correlation of being non-religious, for I've always seen religion as a cash cow for those who can manipulate a weaker mind.

[DossarLX ODI]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

lol, I've brought this argument up before so many times and I've never gotten an answer.

I asked that question during some art class in high school and the guy I asked was like "people do kill themselves!"

[gnr61]

ignoring the semantic problem of what star reaper is saying, i'm curious: what evidence (and i'm speaking of concrete, observable, indisputably existing evidence, which on its own is completely divorced from your viewpoint (because, for some inconceivable reason this HAS TO BE SAID lmao) so as to meet your own standard of "we all have the same evidence"), specifically do you find supports the existence of a deity?

[Dorby]

Originally Posted by gnr61

ignoring the semantic problem of what star reaper is saying, i'm curious: what evidence (and i'm speaking of concrete, observable, indisputably existing evidence, which on its own is completely divorced from your viewpoint so as to meet your own standard of "we all have the same evidence") specifically do you find that supports the existence of a deity?

Placebo effect.

[star reaper]

Originally Posted by Dorby

But you have to understand that we're not denying any truths, for we believe that the fact that you guys believe (or for me anyways) in a higher power is identical in believing in santa claus, which if you were to tell us that santa claus was real and try to defend it, we would simply react in a similar manner.

So, why do you talk as if it matters? to believe that there is no GOD means there is no meaning. We exist because of an accident. That's all life is, an accident. To feel as if you have to defend your view means you have taken from a view that has meaning.

[gnr61]

that's pretty unnecessary, dorby. i'm looking for a genuine answer from a theist who considers evidence to be in his belief's favor, and that was just snarky and dismissive and noncontributive

edit: @star reaper man why you gotta post something that absurd right before i get your back god damn. you believe atheists find no "meaning" in life because this is your definition of "meaning": to love god our lord and savior and live according to his will. of COURSE atheists have no sense of meaning if that's the only definition you ascribe to it. some baaaaad equivocating and more circular logic:

--atheists have no sense of meaning in their life.
--how do you know that?
--because they don't believe in a higher power.
--how can you be sure that's the only form of meaning?
--because my higher power says it is.

whether life is a beautiful accident or a beautiful design: your definition of "meaning" is restrictive to design, for absolutely no discernible reason. it feels like you're making big, broad, definitionally vague words like that mean whatever you want them to, specifically constraining their application to arbitrary things you happen to personally think are important.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by star reaper

Everyone has a view point. It's how you assume things to be true, so the fact that you don't believe there is no GOD is how you perceive the evidence, which all starts with your world view.

"Evidence" is a very important term. In our reality, which is, well, real, evidence is physical. If it's not physical, it's not evidence -- and typically speaking, we can most consistently explain physical evidence with physical frameworks.

So, for example, let's say you pray for a sunny day and get a sunny day. To you, this is "evidence" that God responded to your prayer. You might call this "physical" evidence -- but it's not universally consistent. A better framework exists -- statistics and weather analysis. You can show that every time you pray, the outcome you wish for is uncorrelated. In other words, if you think praying brings about sunny days, it's because you're ignoring all the times prayers did not result in sunny days (confirmation bias).

Same thing goes for any other "evidence for God" you care to invoke -- there exists a better framework to explain it in a consistent, predictive way.

For instance, do you think that how many times you blink in a day has any influence over the temperature at which water boils? You could regress these variables against each other and see that, indeed, blinking has no influence. "But this doesn't prove that it doesn't, in some small way we can never detect!" Sure, but you can say that for anything else with zero correlation. In other words, it is indistinguishable from no influence at all. So we put that hypothesis on hold until we have actual evidence to suggest that we need to re-evaluate the context.

[star reaper]

Originally Posted by gnr61

ignoring the semantic problem of what star reaper is saying, i'm curious: what evidence (and i'm speaking of concrete, observable, indisputably existing evidence, which on its own is completely divorced from your viewpoint (because, for some inconceivable reason this HAS TO BE SAID lmao) so as to meet your own standard of "we all have the same evidence"), specifically do you find supports the existence of a deity?

We all have the same evidence as in. You see a fossil layer, and say, this layer means that this species died out, and then the layer above that died later on, and so far and so forth. Christian view looks at that and says that a global flood took place and reformed the face of the earth. Killing most all life except those sheltered on the ark. same evidence (Fossils) different conclusions based on world view.

[star reaper]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

"Evidence" is a very important term. In our reality, which is, well, real, evidence is physical. If it's not physical, it's not evidence -- and typically speaking, we can most consistently explain physical evidence with physical frameworks.

So, for example, let's say you pray for a sunny day and get a sunny day. To you, this is "evidence" that God responded to your prayer. You might call this "physical" evidence -- but it's not universally consistent. A better framework exists -- statistics and weather analysis. You can show that every time you pray, the outcome you wish for is uncorrelated. In other words, if you think praying brings about sunny days, it's because you're ignoring all the times prayers did not result in sunny days (confirmation bias).

Same thing goes for any other "evidence for God" you care to invoke -- there exists a better framework to explain it in a consistent, predictive way.

For instance, do you think that how many times you blink in a day has any influence over the temperature at which water boils? You could regress these variables against each other and see that, indeed, blinking has no influence. "But this doesn't prove that it doesn't, in some small way we can never detect!" Sure, but you can say that for anything else with zero correlation. In other words, it is indistinguishable from no influence at all. So we put that hypothesis on hold until we have actual evidence to suggest that we need to re-evaluate the context.

... This doesn't seem like we're talking about the same thing anymore ...

[Dorby]

Originally Posted by star reaper

So, why do you talk as if it matters? to believe that there is no GOD means there is no meaning. We exist because of an accident. That's all life is, an accident. To feel as if you have to defend your view means you have taken from a view that has meaning.

I am not defending that viewpoint, for I was born because my mother and father had sex, and his sperm traveled into her uterus thus creating an embryo and I was born 9 months later. But, for you to insist that there is a higher power is an insult to my everyday life, in which that is where the defense would come from, because I know that I'm living my one life and that my attributes were either genetically given to me or acquired through my years of living, none of which I give credit to a higher power that has my entire life planned, thus giving me no meaning to even survive because everything has been planned out for me. To me, that seems like such a bleak existence and robs you of what you genuinely possess.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by star reaper

So, why do you talk as if it matters? to believe that there is no GOD means there is no meaning. We exist because of an accident. That's all life is, an accident. To feel as if you have to defend your view means you have taken from a view that has meaning.

And so what if the universe lacks a God? Nature is as nature is. The universe doesn't "owe" you meaning. It's a scary thought, to some, that we're just chemical-toting meatbags roaming around on a big cluster of rock orbiting a giant ball of superhot gas in a giant galaxy in the middle of fucking nowhere... but that's the way it is, and it doesn't mean you can't make your own meaning.

People tend to want the same things -- to enjoy their days, to love and be loved, to accomplish things, to leave a legacy, to change the world, to live comfortably and enjoy friends/family, yada yada yada. All of these things can be done with an underlying meaning that does not require a God.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by star reaper

... This doesn't seem like we're talking about the same thing anymore ...

Yes, we absolutely are.

Originally Posted by star reaper

We all have the same evidence as in. You see a fossil layer, and say, this layer means that this species died out, and then the layer above that died later on, and so far and so forth. Christian view looks at that and says that a global flood took place and reformed the face of the earth. Killing most all life except those sheltered on the ark. same evidence (Fossils) different conclusions based on world view.

EDIT: Fuck you are posting faster than I can reply. This view, as you just put it, has been debunked via physical evidence. The whole "global flood" thing / Noah's Ark / etc is nonsense.

[JJTrixX]

...and that's the circle of life


but going back to what bmah said:

"It's when you try to apply science to religion or religion to science that things don't make sense. That's comparing apples and oranges. So while they both can exist together, unfortunately a lot of people think that they have to be compared (and so logic from one train of thought is applied to the other which results in arguments that obviously will never be satisfiably resolved)."

That's what makes this such an interesting challenge. Remember, an atheist initiated this thread. How bias would it be to only hear the input of other atheists/agnostics? Do I annoy certain impatient atheists because i fail to explain my faith to them with science? What if I told you my faith IS a science? What if I told you my faith is a science in which you do not comprehend because you chose not to? I know God exists. Where's the evidence? The evidence is inside me and all around me. I sense the presence of God with my heart, mind, and soul. It is a sense that is above and beyond logic and reason. People who do not believe in god, do not understand God. They don't know God. I can not explain God to someone who is chosing not to understand God.

The purpose of this thread isn't to prove why God does or doesn't exist with science and facts. It can not be done that way as bmah has stated. It is to share and listen to the viewpoints of both people who believe and don't believe in God. But in all these posts I haven't read not one reason why someone doesn't believe in God except to say that he doesn't believe he exists because he can't prove he exists. While on the other hand, I have gave countless reasons why I believe by qouting many passages from the Bible to explain them. And so an atheist would say, "How do you know the Bible is an accurate source? Can you prove it to me? Again, using the same argument that something is not credible because it can not be proven. Years ago when the vast majority of the world believed the earth was flat, there were the few that said the earth is not flat, it is round. The people said no! You are wrong/crazy/ridiculous/stupid, the earth is definately flat. Can you prove to me that it's round? At the time it was not proven to the world that it was round, that is why everyone believed it was flat. But what happened? The world eventually found out that they were wrong, and the earth was round.

On the other hand, do any of you atheists reading this have any children? Are you close with your parents? Do you love them? If so, are your parents atheists as well?

The reason I ask these questions is because when you can understand the love a parent has for his/her child, you bring yourself closer to God and have a better understanding of why God does exist. If you're not a parent, you are not going to experience or understand this feeling first hand. Eventually you all will come to find out for yourselves that God does exist, it's only a matter of time. I love you all, so I hope you do so sooner rather then later.

[star reaper]

Originally Posted by gnr61

that's pretty unnecessary, dorby. i'm looking for a genuine answer from a theist who considers evidence to be in his belief's favor, and that was just snarky and dismissive and noncontributive

edit: @star reaper man why you gotta post something that absurd right before i get your back god damn. you believe atheists find no "meaning" in life because this is your definition of "meaning": to love god our lord and savior and live according to his will. of COURSE atheists have no sense of meaning if that's the only definition you ascribe to it. some baaaaad equivocating:

--atheists have no sense of meaning in their life.
--how do you know that?
--because they don't believe in a higher power.
--how can you be sure that's the only form of meaning?
--because my higher power says it is.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Dorby]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Eventually you all will come to find out for yourselves that God does exist, it's only a matter of time.

To become an atheist, we've already had that battle with ourselves.

[star reaper]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Yes, we absolutely are.




EDIT: Fuck you are posting faster than I can reply. This view, as you just put it, has been debunked via physical evidence. The whole "global flood" thing / Noah's Ark / etc is nonsense.

How has it been debunked? what evidence do you have to say that without a doubt?

[star reaper]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...of-of-creation

Also, be back to chatting in a few hours. I have some work to do.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

What if I told you my faith IS a science? What if I told you my faith is a science in which you do not comprehend because you chose not to? I know God exists. Where's the evidence? The evidence is inside me and all around me. I sense the presence of God with my heart, mind, and soul. It is a sense that is above and beyond logic and reason. People who do not believe in god, do not understand God. They don't know God. I can not explain God to someone who is chosing not to understand God.

Because faith isn't science. Science is a physical framework. Scientific findings are universally verifiable. They're true for me, true for you, and true for everyone -- because we live in the same physical universe. You can't say you live on a flat Earth while I live on a round one because we can both see the exact same evidence to show that it is indeed round.

Religious faith is belief in something *without* such evidence. So it's not science. Again, see my reply to star reaper about what it means to have "religious evidence" and why it's problematic in a physical universe.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

And so an atheist would say, "How do you know the Bible is an accurate source? Can you prove it to me? Again, using the same argument that something is not credible because it can not be proven.

Do you not see a problem with believing in something that can't be proven or disproven? If it can't be proven or disproven, it is indistinguishable from not existing.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Years ago when the vast majority of the world believed the earth was flat, there were the few that said the earth is not flat, it is round. The people said no! You are wrong/crazy/ridiculous/stupid, the earth is definately flat. Can you prove to me that it's round? At the time it was not proven to the world that it was round, that is why everyone believed it was flat. But what happened? The world eventually found out that they were wrong, and the earth was round.

Science is always adjusting its views.. If something is proven wrong or insufficient, it gets replaced by something stronger and more universally consistent. Religion, on the other hand, tends to maintain its views no matter how the evidence changes (a prime example being Creationists who refuse to acknowledge that evolution is true even though it's an open-and-shut case).

That's also why a hypothesis in the scientific method must be falsifiable.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

On the other hand, do any of you atheists reading this have any children? Are you close with your parents? Do you love them? If so, are your parents atheists as well?

The reason I ask these questions is because when you can understand the love a parent has for his/her child, you bring yourself closer to God and have a better understanding of why God does exist. If you're not a parent, you are not going to experience or understand this feeling first hand. Eventually you all will come to find out for yourselves that God does exist, it's only a matter of time. I love you all, so I hope you do so sooner rather then later.

Why do you assume "love" implies a God? To an atheist, love is an emotion like any other. Love is still a chemical process in the brain. It's capable of utterly fantastic things, but it does nothing to say that it "trascends" in some way. Our brains are pretty amazing things, considering what they're made of.

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

...and that's the circle of life


but going back to what bmah said:

"It's when you try to apply science to religion or religion to science that things don't make sense. That's comparing apples and oranges. So while they both can exist together, unfortunately a lot of people think that they have to be compared (and so logic from one train of thought is applied to the other which results in arguments that obviously will never be satisfiably resolved)."

That's what makes this such an interesting challenge. Remember, an atheist initiated this thread. How bias would it be to only hear the input of other atheists/agnostics? Do I annoy certain impatient atheists because i fail to explain my faith to them with science? What if I told you my faith IS a science? What if I told you my faith is a science in which you do not comprehend because you chose not to? I know God exists. Where's the evidence? The evidence is inside me and all around me. I sense the presence of God with my heart, mind, and soul. It is a sense that is above and beyond logic and reason. People who do not believe in god, do not understand God. They don't know God. I can not explain God to someone who is chosing not to understand God.

In response to the bolded parts in their respective order,

That is not the definition of science. Science is subject to scrutiny and review.

That is not the definition of evidence. Evidence is physically and readily accessible.


I am curious to know if you are also RB_Spirit, as you both intriguingly and uniquely use the word 'bias' as an adjective.