Atheism/Theism thread

[Mollocephalus]

It seems quite clear, mr. jj, that you're one of the most pathetic examples of indoctrination ever seen on this site. It's infuriating how you only reply to what you want, disregard the core points completely, and on top of all, legitimately think faith puts you on a higher plane than everyone else. Grow a brain.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

This is absolutely correct. People's minds will not change unless they want to change themselves. You can not force anything onto anyone. Like I mentioned before, science exists because of God and no where does God say he is against science.

Science is a man-made construct developed by man's curiosity for answers. It does not exist -because- of god.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Many of you are not understanding my meaning when i say:
theists - Love > Science
atheist - Science > Love; so I will explain it in a different way.

God preaches nothing but Love in different ways, shapes, and sizes. Theists who believe in God are constantly reading, understanding, and accepting the word of God. Therefore theists put Love on a higher plane then they put science because Love takes a higher priorety.

Atheists, who do not involve emotions(such as love) within thier science, are constantly looking for answers and information based on concrete evidence, facts, and scientific support. Atheists are constantly reading, understanding, and accepting new scientific discoveries. therefore atheists put Science on a higher plane then they put love because Science takes a higher priorety.

Here you go again with assumptions. Science technically has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a higher power. Science is the most accurate construct for truth however, which is why many atheists resort to science for answers. Science does not rely on blind faith, but on factual evidence. It's a tool for truthful knowledge, not a conviction.

And another thing, science and love are not mutually exclusive, nor are they comparable to each other in terms of emotion. Anyone can experience a great love for anything (including science WOAH), but believing in something just because it's the most convenient or the most reassuring does not make it true. Science is a tool for truthful knowledge, not an emotion.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

But as a Christian or someone who is trying to understand the Christian faith should understand this:

Matthew 22:37, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” It outweighs all other commandments and is a summary of all that God requires of us.

We should love God above everything and everyone else (Matthew 10:37 ). It leads to obeying His other laws (John 14:15 ). Without it, life is empty and religion is worthless. But in loving God, we fulfill our reason for existence. God wants us to love Him with our whole being – from the bottom of our heart to the top of our mind.

Unfortunately, we sinners are “lovers of self, lovers of money, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:2,4). We are guilty of breaking God’s greatest commandment. But God loved us and sent Christ to save us. We can be forgiven by faith in Him. We then show our gratitude by loving Him (Luke 7:47 ). This is how we are able to truly love God. Then we can spend all eternity loving God and being loved by Him.

That's again with the assumption that there actually is a God, but I will address a few things.
Why would you love a god? What reason is there to love a god? Because he's helped you in a way that is in no way possible other than divine intervention but yet there's no sign of it? Because you'll burn in hell otherwise? Because the bible tells you to? You cite these bible quotes nonstop as if they're the is-all end-all source of information, but the bible is not a credible source, just as much as a book praising the flying spaghetti monster is not a credible source. There's no factual data, no evidence and the stories are unbelievable (not in the positive sense). How can we verify this is the truth? Not to mention that the bible contradicts well-understood principles of science and biology, how can you take a piece of paper that was written by humans as word of god? Who is to say that it's not a lie? Who is to say it's not just some mentally ill's ramblings.
There's just too much guesswork, inconsistencies and fallacies for any honest justification of believing in a higher power.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

Without it, life is empty and religion is worthless.

Religion is worthless, because it claims to have all the answers for everything ever, which has been proven wrong often enough by science. But what bothered me most is that "life is empty" without it, which is not true at all. Life is what you make of it. Personally, I find it incredibly humbling to realize that we are the product of billions of years of "luck", and that we only have so little time to experience everything around us. I find it incredibly humbling to realize that there's so much we already know, but so much more that we do not know yet. It's far more interesting than having all the "answers".

All I see you do is cite the bible for your answers and make arguments from authority, instead of actually thinking for yourself. But alas, these words will probably fly by you and you will happily continue on your merry way of spewing biblequotes, ignoring the core issues.

[noname219]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

This is absolutely correct. People's minds will not change unless they want to change themselves. You can not force anything onto anyone. Like I mentioned before, science exists because of God and no where does God say he is against science.

Many of you are not understanding my meaning when i say:
theists - Love > Science
atheist - Science > Love; so I will explain it in a different way.

God preaches nothing but Love in different ways, shapes, and sizes. Theists who believe in God are constantly reading, understanding, and accepting the word of God. Therefore theists put Love on a higher plane then they put science because Love takes a higher priorety.

Atheists, who do not involve emotions(such as love) within thier science, are constantly looking for answers and information based on concrete evidence, facts, and scientific support. Atheists are constantly reading, understanding, and accepting new scientific discoveries. therefore atheists put Science on a higher plane then they put love because Science takes a higher priorety.

But as a Christian or someone who is trying to understand the Christian faith should understand this:

Matthew 22:37, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” It outweighs all other commandments and is a summary of all that God requires of us.

We should love God above everything and everyone else (Matthew 10:37 ). It leads to obeying His other laws (John 14:15 ). Without it, life is empty and religion is worthless. But in loving God, we fulfill our reason for existence. God wants us to love Him with our whole being – from the bottom of our heart to the top of our mind.

Unfortunately, we sinners are “lovers of self, lovers of money, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:2,4). We are guilty of breaking God’s greatest commandment. But God loved us and sent Christ to save us. We can be forgiven by faith in Him. We then show our gratitude by loving Him (Luke 7:47 ). This is how we are able to truly love God. Then we can spend all eternity loving God and being loved by Him.

Following your explanation, you generalized that all atheists put science in front of love. Atheists and the process behind scientific understanding are two different things.
So, automatically the assumptions you're making are based on a misunderstanding.

[bmah]

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

@ bmah: I understand and you are absolutely right but if you are going to take the time to tell me this, then take the time to say this in the countless other instances throughout this thread where someone has "preached onto others implying that they don't know any better." Do not succumb to bias just because the majority of posters in this thread are atheist.

Oh, I agree with that as well. Your statements though seem to stick out like a sore thumb. All in all, just be respectful of the conversation for a topic known to be volatile. It's all too easy to think the others are cuckoo and then make your replies more forceful as a result. But keep in mind that refuting an argument/making a disagreement is not the same as preaching.

I won't say too much on the debate, since I haven't been following the conversation closely. Please excuse whatever naiveté you perceive of my opinion:

Science and religion are two different trains of thoughts.

I believe that science is largely accepted and regarded today because it's the medium we use to logically explain the things that exist and happen around us. Things we don't know are hypotheses. In today's world, this is more important to us than ever, because understanding how we interact with our environment is essential in surviving. When we have proofs and facts, we reassure ourselves that we're progressing. Humans like reassurance of one form or another. We're not comfortable with a lack of understanding because it creates uncertainty that may either contribute or hinder our progress in the human race.

On the other hand, religion is winding down moreso today, but was much more commonplace in the past. I think this is because a number of people did not get the reassurance they were promised when practicing their religion. Comforting ourselves with hope rather than something factual and concrete was not a guarantee. Centuries ago, there was less of an understanding of the world, so religion was the main way for people to hold on and comfort themselves - even if this comfort was mostly spiritual and did not necessarily improve human survival. Without the knowledge back then, what else could people do? We're still trying to understand the world today, but we certainly haven't relied upon religion to the same degree as we did in the past.

So today, I see the purpose of religion as a mechanism to bring groups and communities together. After all, group work and getting along does help contribute to human survival, right? And the closer we are, the better we feel as well. Again, this is entirely mental/spiritual and has nothing to do with facts.

Now the above statement never implied that religion is against scientific progress. I just think it serves a different purpose in the survival of the human race. Science also contributes to the human race, but in a different way - via observation. In fact, a lot of people are both religious and practice science at the same time, and I think that's because they're utilizing multiple ways of more comfortably surviving in this world.

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).

I don't believe in God, but at the same time, I don't mind if someone tells me "may God bless you." I have my own reservations on how I interpret the world and survive but I can happily accept someone else's gesture of moral comfort - as long as they're not telling me how I'm supposed to be interpreting the world (i.e. preaching).

All in all, keep science and religion separate. If you try to compare the two, you'll have misunderstandings such as "atheists being cold-hearted and unloving".

[gnr61]

lmao what does Love > Science mean

that's straight up the broadest, most emotionally manipulative and dishonest incident of apples-vs-oranges misattribution i've heard in a loooong time

-

as a more general pointer, jj, your debating style hinges almost one-hundred percent of the time on shifting burden of proof to where it does not belong. i don't mean this only insofar as it applies to proving god's existence (which certainly doesn't need to be DISproved wtf), but also to the broadly insubstantial emotive claims you make, ie "atheists prefer science to love," or "your life is bleak, and because you don't believe what my parents taught me you have no morals and have only death to look forward to." citing the text (scripture) of your own beliefs, the very same ones whose validity is being debated, is a form of *circular reasoning*, and so does not substantiate your points at all. therefore it's not just unfair, but *fallacious* to make such an incredible claim and then demand that your opponents disprove them, or else, because they've gone "unchallenged" in your mind, they are true. that's just not how it works man lol.

EDIT: for example, i can't say the following with any good conscience:

"because nothing happens after we die, Christians like you are wasting your life on earth. if you don't understand that this life is the only life you have, how can you truly appreciate it and live it to it's fullest? you can't. don't agree? prove that i'm wrong."

you see, i'm asking you to argue a point that can only be made from within the dogmatic framework of MY beliefs. because we have a fundamental disagreement of dogma, it doesn't make sense to try to make you disprove a statement from the premise "because nothing happens after we die," because you don't accept that premise to begin with. that premise itself and our reasons for believing one way or the other is what can be discussed, and our supports weighed against one another's. but what you're doing is making the same sorts of claims/demands as the one i just posted, and proceeding to back them up only with the very material (the analog to my sample fallacious premise) which is contested to begin with.


EDIT 2: shit, inb4 "whether we disagree on the dogma doesn't matter, because i have the truth." or "Love > Logic"

[j-rodd123]

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Science is a man-made construct developed by man's curiosity for answers. It does not exist -because- of god.



Here you go again with assumptions. Science technically has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a higher power. Science is the most accurate construct for truth however, which is why many atheists resort to science for answers. Science does not rely on blind faith, but on factual evidence. It's a tool for truthful knowledge, not a conviction.

thank you, it's so annoying how people from both sides always lump science and atheism together, huge pet peeve of mine

[Razor]

how long until this thread gets locked and jj gets banned

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by gnr61

lmao what does Love > Science mean

that's straight up the broadest, most emotionally manipulative and dishonest incident of apples-vs-oranges misattribution i've heard in a loooong time

-

as a more general pointer, jj, your debating style hinges almost one-hundred percent of the time on shifting burden of proof to where it does not belong. i don't mean this only insofar as it applies to proving god's existence (which certainly doesn't need to be DISproved wtf), but also to the broadly insubstantial emotive claims you make, ie "atheists prefer science to love," or "your life is bleak, and because you don't believe what my parents taught me you have no morals and have only death to look forward to." citing the text (scripture) of your own beliefs, the very same ones whose validity is being debated, is a form of *circular reasoning*, and so does not substantiate your points at all. therefore it's not just unfair, but *fallacious* to make such an incredible claim and then demand that your opponents disprove them, or else, because they've gone "unchallenged" in your mind, they are true. that's just not how it works man lol.

This picture comes to mind

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by Razor

...jj gets banned

It seems fit per the first rule of the forum (at the time the posts were made): 1) There is absolutely no flaming allowed in Critical Thinking.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

You live a bleak life. You have nothing to look forward to, except death.

Originally Posted by JJTrixX

I understand you may have a reading deficiency, but please bear with me.

[Mollocephalus]

That does not constitute aggressive behaviour, just stupidity.

[ilikexd]

On the contrary, baselessly telling somebody that they have a reading disability is quite aggressive and insulting.

[bmah]

Originally Posted by ilikexd

It seems fit per the first rule of the forum (at the time the posts were made): 1) There is absolutely no flaming allowed in Critical Thinking.

I have moved this from Critical Thinking to Chit Chat though. If the conversation degrades much further, expect it to be locked.

[noname219]

Originally Posted by bmah

When we have proofs and facts, we reassure ourselves that we're progressing. Humans like reassurance of one form or another. We're not comfortable with a lack of understanding because it creates uncertainty that may either contribute or hinder our progress in the human race.

This is interesting because I think it's valid for both sides of the coin.
Let's say you see something you cannot understand. In most cases, the scientific will try to find the answer in something he don't know yet while the theist will try to find the answer in something he already know. And that's comforting for christians when you know all the answers to life can be resumed to god intervention.
So, in the end, the goal for the human being is to understand what's not understandable and being comfortable with the answers he can found. Whatever his stance is.

I believe religion can be useful for spiritual means. If you feel comfortable with your religion and you're happy with it, good for you. Just don't bash others because they don't share the same opinions than you. If you're able to accept others as they are, then it might make you a better person.

[Mollocephalus]

Originally Posted by noname219

Let's say you see something you cannot understand. In most cases, the scientific will try to find the answer in something he don't know yet while the theist will try to find the answer in something he already know.

Actually, the theist will find the answer in something that was made up. It's just a consolation. Its not an answer.

[star reaper]

what most people don't realize is the fact that both theist, and atheist have the same evidence. it's their world views that decipher the evidence in different ways.

[Mollocephalus]

Choosing to trash away the evidence and replace it with mythology is not deciphering the evidence, is altering it.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by star reaper

what most people don't realize is the fact that both theist, and atheist have the same evidence. it's their world views that decipher the evidence in different ways.

Difference between the atheist and theist is that atheists lack belief in deities and nothing more than that. Atheists don't all share the same worldview and neither do theists. Don't mix up definitions or add something to a definition that's not part of the word. That's the same as what JJTrixX did with the whole love vs science thing and paints an unfair picture.

[Dorby]

Originally Posted by adlp

2. dorby how can you have a good taste in music and still be clinically retarded?

Besides the fact that you're giving me a taste of my own medicine (which I deserve) I think that if we can agree on one thing as important as taste in music, surely we aren't that far off in our mindset. Also, I find constructive criticism the best, in which in this thread alone I don't feel I've demonstrated clinical retardation (assuming that's what you're referring to, because if it's anything else It's been so long that it's really not relevant) so if you care to elaborate further, I'd most likely oblige to an explanation.

[star reaper]

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Difference between the atheist and theist is that atheists lack belief in deities and nothing more than that. Atheists don't all share the same worldview and neither do theists. Don't mix up definitions or add something to a definition that's not part of the word. That's the same as what JJTrixX did with the whole love vs science thing and paints an unfair picture.

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.

[Dorby]

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.

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.