The case for God

[Dawnslayer]

Religion threads are done to death on the BBS. It's reached the point where we practically lock a religion thread as soon as it starts just to avoid the flaming. That said, I've decided to take a gamble and make one, albeit with a slightly different twist than usual.

First, a little bit about me: I was born into a Christian family, and raised by Christian morals. I went to Sunday school, and later to church, although in fairness I didn't really pay much attention to the sermons. Around age twelve, the scientist in me asked, "What evidence is there of the existence of God?" Upon deciding none existed, I decided I was an atheist. Then in high school, I looked at atheism and wondered, "How do I know for sure that God does not exist?" And I realized I didn't know, because there was no proof against God. Since then, I have neither acknowledged nor denied the existence of any divine being all powerful or otherwise, a.k.a. agnosticism.

-----

Right now I'm in college and taking a course in logic - which is the inspiration for this thread. I am challenging the religious users of Newgrounds to make the case for the existence of their divine order. Consider it an invitation to try and make a believer out of me, and I will keep an open mind.

These are the rules:

-You are only allowed to make your case using logical arguments, consisting of a set of premises leading to a stated conclusion. Both deductive and inductive arguments are permissible.
-You must be ready to verify the truth of your premises and the validity of your argument. If a premise is found to be false or an argument invalid, I will not hesitate to break it down.
-Atheists are welcome to make an effort to sway me in the other direction, provided they follow the same rules as set forth for the theists. I also ask that theists be allowed the opening argument, as the topic is primarily meant for them.
-Each side is allowed to analyze the arguments of the other, but must be ready to defend their analysis.
-No whining, complaining, finger-pointing, name-calling, or senseless ranting. Posters are advised to ignore any statement made that is not a contribution to an argument or counterargument.
-Ignorance of these rules is not an excuse for violating them. If you do not understand what the rules mean, do some research before posting.

-----

Basic logic symbols, if anyone sees a reason to use them...

not: ~
and: ^
or: +
if/then: =>
if and only if: <=>

Okay, Newgrounders - make your case.

[altanese-mistress]

That is not agnosticism. It is the popular misconception of what agnosticism is, granted. But it is not an uncertainty over wether or not God, an afterlife, and what have you, exist. Rather, it is the belief in these things, but knowledge that they are unknowable, or put another way, belief in God but rejection of religion.

[Elfer]

It's also worth noting that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, not a different thing.

[JustsTrollingAlong]

Well, I'm not too interested in convincing you of something but I do have a couple questions for you since you're a logic student.

What's the logic behind phobias? Why do people have irrational fears? (no, you are not allowed to use the fear of heights and say it's a survival instinct)

What is logical about love? How can some people love someone when they don't like them or they are upset at them, wouldn't it be illogical to care deeply about someone and want to hurt them at the same time?

What's logical about emotions? Why would people sometimes feel sad when it would make sense to be happy? What's logical about getting angry?
Why do so many people consider it "logical" to ignore their emotions/feelings in situations and instead think about the situation "logically"?
What's the logic behind people only using part of their abilities and ignoring others when trying to understand something obviously greater than they are?

What makes you think the world in which you live is simply a logical place, would it be logical to tie your right arm behind your back simply because you have chosen to exercise your left arm more and therefore made it "stronger and better" than your right arm?

Answer my questions with an open mind and I might not have to answer yours.

[dySWN]

At 10/10/09 11:30 AM, Elfer wrote: It's also worth noting that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, not a different thing.

I've never understood where this talking point came from. It seems to me that, but the very nature of the fact that agnostics are either noncommittal on the issue or simply believe that He/She/It is unknowable, agnosticism walks a middle road between athieism and theism. If God does not have a chance of existing in the mind of an agnostic, then why would they bother to add that he's unknowable - nothingness is pretty easy to understand when you get right down to it.

[amaterasu]

god =/= logic

qed.

[morefngdbs]

As you stated in you opener OP, you were =brought up in a christian family...so your views of 'god' are as you were taught by that particular religion.

Which is my entire problem with god, not that belief or disbelief in god is in any way good or bad IMO.
No its Religion(s) that are the real problem.
All the control issues, the gathering of wealth, actual threatening people with eternal damnation if you don't Blah, Blah , Blah is the real problem & as I've stated here many times religon really has nothing to do with godliness !
If you find someone who is happy, what is considered in our society to be a 'good' person etc. & isn't religious but still believes in the idea of god(s) , they don't fit into any religious group. They also do not fall under agnostic or atheist, they are IMo in a group of their own.

[Bacchanalian]

At 10/10/09 12:21 PM, JustsTrollingAlong wrote: What's the logic behind phobias? Why do people have irrational fears? (no, you are not allowed to use the fear of heights and say it's a survival instinct)

Well, if we assume evolution, or at least that we were once more primitive in culture, phobias are vestigial. They are (or more accurately were) acutely conditioned modes-of-action.

Additionally, there is something similar to phobias called taste-aversion - where following a very bad experience with a certain food, that certain food immediately sickens the individual in the future.

By the nature of what they do, it'd lead one to believe that they were a survival mechanism. But that's not necessarily the case. Not everything we're stuck with now was at some point a matter of survival. In any case it's not hard to figure how it could work in a more primitive setting.

Though... the biggest problem with this question is that it assumes a thing illogical if it doesn't match up to some notion of cognitive usage and intent. This is sort of a common issue among all your questions. Because they violate a set of interests that exist in a largely separate context, you assume they're illogical.

Your questions all boil down to, "why do we do this, when it makes more sense to do that?" and using that as a premise to claim all 'these' things are illogical. Well. No. They're not. There're very logical, just not with respect to the goal you've assigned them. All the things you mention follow from explicit relationships, regardless of whether that relationship leads to something desirable or not.

What's logical about emotions?
[...]
Why do so many people consider it "logical" to ignore their emotions/feelings in situations and instead think about the situation "logically"?

Wait... you just got done telling us (through a rhetorical question) that emotions are illogical.

Though to answer your question: Since emotions don't actually weigh on logical statements, there's not much of a point to include them if we're looking for some kind of objective validity.

What makes you think the world in which you live is simply a logical place

Even if we acknowledge that things are illogical in certain contexts, that does not explicitly justify advocating anything else illogical, or disregarding the logic behind certain things that may appear illogical.

[fatape]

I don't know why people complicate this so much

do you belive in god?

if not your an athiest.

[JustsTrollingAlong]

At 10/10/09 04:07 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/10/09 12:21 PM, JustsTrollingAlong wrote: What's the logic behind phobias? Why do people have irrational fears? (no, you are not allowed to use the fear of heights and say it's a survival instinct)

Well, if we assume evolution, or at least that we were once more primitive in culture, phobias are vestigial. They are (or more accurately were) acutely conditioned modes-of-action.

I don't assume that, but w/e

Additionally, there is something similar to phobias called taste-aversion - where following a very bad experience with a certain food, that certain food immediately sickens the individual in the future.

By the nature of what they do, it'd lead one to believe that they were a survival mechanism. But that's not necessarily the case. Not everything we're stuck with now was at some point a matter of survival. In any case it's not hard to figure how it could work in a more primitive setting.

Ok... bibliophobia, botanophobia, coulrophobia (the fear of clowns), genophobia (fear of sex)
Explain how those would work in a primitive setting please.

Wait... you just got done telling us (through a rhetorical question) that emotions are illogical.

My question was not rhetorical, I ask again... what's logical about emotions, why do we have them? Animals supposedly do not have the complex set of emotions that we have, why do we have these? (Since you want to stick with evolution) Why would we "evolve" emotions because as you say....

emotions don't actually weigh on logical statements

So if the world is completely logical why would we want something that you see as being against logic or not affecting it

Even if we acknowledge that things are illogical in certain contexts, that does not explicitly justify advocating anything else illogical, or disregarding the logic behind certain things that may appear illogical.

Your point you are attempting to convey here is?....

Also, you only even attempted to answer one of my questions which was about phobias, saying that they were vestigial from long ago times of cavemen which we have evolved from and are no longer useful but for some reason we haven't evolved them out of the race.... which is complete bullshit, not only for the fact that your line of thinking about evolution is completely wrong, if we came from fucking pond guck how come we haven't been able to get rid of our "vestigial phobias" yet. But also for the fact that there are many modern phobias (the fear of lawsuits, the fear of computers, the fear of dentists, etc. etc. etc.)

And then you grouped all the rest of my questions into one big lump saying that all my questions are trying to say that certain things are illogical (when I had a much better point than that to my questions, and was actually looking for them to be answered) and then you go on to state that all of these things are actually completely logical because they are about procreation. (explain genophobia then) You totally misconstrued what I was asking in an attempt to get your seudointellectual argument across.

Obviously this is a reason why I asked the questions of the logic student, which you would have known if you had read my post instead of grouping my questions together into a statement which said what you wanted it to say.

[fatape]

At 10/10/09 04:54 PM, Victory wrote:

all it means is that you don't see evidence of god so you don't belive in him,

Its the same thing with leperchauns or toothfairys or unicorns, I see no evidence for there exsistence so I don't belive in them.

Now I can't say they definitly do not exsit, since theres a possibility that literaly ANYTHING could exsit , however I can say that they most likely do not exsit.And that belife in them is unwarrented given the lack of evidence.

[Bacchanalian]

At 10/10/09 05:00 PM, JustsTrollingAlong wrote: I don't assume that, but w/e

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to give you an example in which intent is a factor in whether or not a condition is logical or not. Though, this was clearly the wrong move, since you took it as an archetypal answer, and assumed that everything is logical in my eyes because I assume it does or at one point aided procreation.

That is so far from my point. Logic is not inherently tied to intent or macroscopic goal. That is my point.

Ok... bibliophobia, botanophobia, coulrophobia (the fear of clowns), genophobia (fear of sex)
Explain how those would work in a primitive setting please.

Same mechanism, new variables. What about a vesitigial mechanism would necessisarily limit it to variables that only existed in the time of its potential use?

My question was not rhetorical

"What's the logic behind people only using part of their abilities and ignoring others when trying to understand something obviously greater than they are?"
"Answer my questions with an open mind and I might not have to answer yours."

Do not play this game please.

what's logical about emotions, why do we have them?

Are you asking why we should have them or why we do have them?

Animals supposedly do not have the complex set of emotions that we have, why do we have these?

Animals very much have emotions. Many of them actually have a similar range of emotions to human beings. The nuance and complexity is derived more from our cognitive ability, than our emotional ability - what abstract implications we attach to any particular emotion.

So if the world is completely logical why would we want something that you see as being against logic or not affecting it

Because we're not always looking for objective validity. Because a thing that is unaffecting is not necessarily against. Because they're interesting.

And intent aside, it's not illogical that they exist.

Your point you are attempting to convey here is?....

I suppose I'll withhold it, since, if I'm wrong about your point, mine may just be a huge red herring.*

And then you grouped all the rest of my questions into one big lump saying that all my questions are trying to say that certain things are illogical

Because almost every question is followed by a very obvious example of something that seems illogical.

"What's the logic behind phobias? Why do people have irrational fears?"
"What is logical about love? How can some people love someone when they don't like them or they are upset at them, wouldn't it be illogical to care deeply about someone and want to hurt them at the same time?
"What's logical about emotions? Why would people sometimes feel sad when it would make sense to be happy?"

And if you're not rhetorically begging the question that these things are illogical, what is the point of the final question, "What makes you think the world in which you live is simply a logical place?" You're clearly trying to make the point that the world is not. And then... *what do your questions have to do with God?

You totally misconstrued what I was asking in an attempt to get your seudointellectual argument across.

No need for insults.

Obviously this is a reason why I asked the questions of the logic student, which you would have known if you had read my post instead of grouping my questions together into a statement which said what you wanted it to say.

Except they're all the same question. They're all asking what in a thing is logical when the intent does not match the outcome. Intent in comparison to outcome is not the end all be all of whether a thing is logical or not.

[altanese-mistress]

At 10/10/09 12:27 PM, dySWN wrote: If God does not have a chance of existing in the mind of an agnostic, then why would they bother to add that he's unknowable

Again, it's that there -are- higher powers of some sort, but that they are unknowable, not that they do not exist.

At 10/10/09 04:15 PM, fatape wrote: I don't know why people complicate this so much

do you belive in god?

if not your an athiest.

Most sects of Buddhism don't have any Gods. Does that make Buddhism not-a-religion?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 10/10/09 03:52 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: These are the rules:

LOL so much for that one huh?

I was going to assign letters to propositions and make a truth table for the whole jam for fun but then ehhh it came out looking kinda retarded. Below is the general path of logic I was trying to describe with notation but gave up on.

Making a logical case for "God" [termed here 'Universal Consciousness']

- if subjective (individual) consciousness/perception exists = T
-- then subjective "reality" exists = T

- subjective "reality" =/= universal/objective reality
(subjective "reality" is a distortion based upon universal/objective reality; a subset of the universal)

- if universal/objective (subject-independent) reality exists = T
-- then Universal/objective Consciousness/perception exists = T

- if there are zero observers within objective reality, then the truth value of objective reality (or anything in it) existing is indeterminate. we generally insist that the world exists even when we aren't awake or alive to perceive it -- but if there are ZERO TOTAL observers, then the term "reality" itself means nothing as there is no one to observe/perceive/judge states or properties of existence and thus no one to determine what is real and what is not.

. . .

It basically hinges on the idea that for any object to be said to exist (or to have a particular property) it needs at least one observer to confirm its existence (or to judge x-property), otherwise its existence/properties is neither true nor false but indeterminate (uhhh like "Schrodinger's Cat" I guess) .

Even materially-reductionistic atheists would insist that the world exists whether we're here to perceive it or not; I'd go a step further and insist that just as our individual/subjective "reality" is a subset based upon some universal/objective reality defined outside of our consciousness/perception, our subjective/individual consciousness/perception ITSELF is a subset based upon some Universal/objective Consciousness/perception defined outside our individual/subjective realities. ;)

sorry if i just said the same thing four times in a row there.

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, LOL yaa know, something like that. :P

At 10/10/09 08:57 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: That is not agnosticism. It is the popular misconception of what agnosticism is, granted. But it is not an uncertainty over wether or not God, an afterlife, and what have you, exist. Rather, it is the belief in these things, but knowledge that they are unknowable, or put another way, belief in God but rejection of religion.

. . .

At 10/10/09 11:30 AM, Elfer wrote: It's also worth noting that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, not a different thing.

. . .

Man, how annoying is it that we go through this stuff ad nauseam, especially when people insist upon completely different definitions for the same exact phrases? Ugh.

To MY understanding, gnosticism/agnosticism deals with whether something can or cannot ACTUALLY BE KNOWN, and it has nothing to do with whether one indeed believes a proposition (e.g. "God exists") to be either true or false. So, if this IS the case, then to altanese-mistress: no, agnosticism is not necessarily a belief in the existence of something that is "known to be unknowable"; and to Elfer: no, agnosticism is not a subset of atheism, it IS a different thing which is inclusive in respect towards both theism and atheism.

*harrumph* :P

[Elfer]

At 10/10/09 12:27 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/10/09 11:30 AM, Elfer wrote: It's also worth noting that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, not a different thing.

I've never understood where this talking point came from. It seems to me that, but the very nature of the fact that agnostics are either noncommittal on the issue or simply believe that He/She/It is unknowable, agnosticism walks a middle road between athieism and theism. If God does not have a chance of existing in the mind of an agnostic, then why would they bother to add that he's unknowable - nothingness is pretty easy to understand when you get right down to it.

It's not a talking point, it's an attempt to deal with the exact misconception you've shown here. Atheists are not people who are convinced that god does not exist. That represents a (VERY) small subset of atheists.

Atheism in the general sense is just people who simply don't believe in god. There's no condition where you have to think that "God does not have a chance of existing," it's more along the lines of "I have no particular reason to believe that God exists."

To repeat, and this is a very important point here: There are very, VERY few atheists who are convinced that God does not exist. Most atheists are open to the possibility of God, they just don't see a reason to believe that God definitely does exist.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 10/10/09 11:36 PM, Elfer wrote: Atheists are not people who are convinced that god does not exist.

...

Atheism in the general sense is just people who simply don't believe in god.

...guh. Crap like this makes me want to pull my hair out.

To repeat, and this is a very important point here: There are very, VERY few atheists who are convinced that God does not exist.

You're trying to make it seem as though the distinction between "I believe that God does not exist." and "I believe that God absolutely positively does not and can not exist." is what the difference between atheism and agnosticism is about... but, it isn't. Agnosticism doesn't mean that there's a super-strong certitude that God's existence is false, it just means that God's existence cannot be certainly known as being EITHER true OR false. Since there are agnostics on both sides of the theism/atheism fence then obviously agnosticism is not exclusive to the realm of non-belief and thus is not actually a "subset" of atheism as you are attempting to claim.

Not like any of this stuff is EVER going to be resolved (much less in an internet forum of all places) but seriously people, let's at least try to speak the same friggin language here. Oh wait... we're talking about the idea of 'God', the most ambiguous and subjective term of them all. LOL nevermind. :|

[SteveGuzzi]

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE SECRET OF BEING, YOU WILL COME WITH US.

[Dawnslayer]

So, replying to the ONLY person to post even remotely on topic so far...

At 10/10/09 07:22 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:
Making a logical case for "God" [termed here 'Universal Consciousness']

- if subjective (individual) consciousness/perception exists = T
-- then subjective "reality" exists = T

- subjective "reality" =/= universal/objective reality
(subjective "reality" is a distortion based upon universal/objective reality; a subset of the universal)

- if universal/objective (subject-independent) reality exists = T
-- then Universal/objective Consciousness/perception exists = T

Problem: you first state if subjective consciousness exists, then subjective reality exists (C => R). Then you go on to say that if universal reality exists, then universal consciousness must also exist (R => C). If consciousness is sufficient condition for reality, then reality can not be sufficient condition for consciousness, unless consciousness and reality are biconditional [S => (~S + B)].

But I think that's the argument you're trying to make and you simply misstated, so I'll operate from here on the assumption that the argument thus far is (A <=> B) & (X <=> Y). The next question is, are these premises true?

- if there are zero observers within objective reality, then the truth value of objective reality (or anything in it) existing is indeterminate. we generally insist that the world exists even when we aren't awake or alive to perceive it -- but if there are ZERO TOTAL observers, then the term "reality" itself means nothing as there is no one to observe/perceive/judge states or properties of existence and thus no one to determine what is real and what is not.

So what you're saying here is, without consciousness there is no reality (~C => ~R). If this premise is true, then the premise [(A <=> B) & (X <=> Y)] is also true (T => T). But this premise assumes that another premise - that the world exists regardless of whether anyone is around to notice [R & (C + ~C)] - is false. If that premise is true, then the premise you assert can not be true, and the first premise is also not true as a result [T => (~T & ~T)].

It basically hinges on the idea that for any object to be said to exist (or to have a particular property) it needs at least one observer to confirm its existence (or to judge x-property), otherwise its existence/properties is neither true nor false but indeterminate (uhhh like "Schrodinger's Cat" I guess).

So, if there is reality, then there is consciousness; and if there is consciousness, then there is reality; therefore there is reality if and only if there is consciousness (R <=> C). Likewise, if there is no consciousness then there is no reality, and vice versa (~R <=> ~C). But this poses the same problem; in order to determine that the premise (~C => ~R) is true, the premise [R & (C + ~C)] must be determined to be false. And this is where I think your argument collapses, because in order to prove that reality can not exist without consciousness, there must be an observer to prove the point, thereby contradicting the premise you are attempting to prove true and in the process unwittingly proving it false. Thus the truth of the premise of indeterminability without consciousness is itself indeterminable; and if that premise cannot be proven, then no other premise of the argument can be proven, thereby undermining the entire argument.

-----

Now to everyone else: can we please stop debating semantics and use this thread for its intended purpose? You all know what I meant regardless of what I said. And if it's really that frickin' important to you, then fine - I'm an atheist challenging theists and anti-theists to present logical arguments for their beliefs. Different text, SAME INTENT. Now let it go.

[poxpower]

At 10/11/09 12:48 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Since there are agnostics on both sides of the theism/atheism fence

I don't think that by definition you can be an agnostic believer in something.
How can you believe something exist while at the same time holding the position that it's impossible to ascertain whether that thing exists or not?

That's basically admitting you're an idiot.

[dizzenbee]

The truth is there is not much logic. God created things its hard to imagine because we are not perfect. And if you are atheist can you explain how the size and distance from the sun is EXACTLY right for us not too hot not too cold. DId a bunch of rocks have logic no? Now i can see how you were an athesist and want to be like that but the truth is, every religion some questions may not be answered you must only wait with faith, instead of analizing the wrongness in christianity, look for wrong doing in athesim for instance How come evolution doesn't give us the body parts of animals whatsoever?Try becomig a christian and asking your leader(S for JW) in your group some questions. And have you realized the goverment is against religion and hasn't said a word of atheism

[Warforger]

Personally I do not understand the "I don't know that he doesn't exist" if there's no evidence other then just stories then whats the reasoning behind believing in him in the first place. I mean there's no evidence invisible unicorns that cause all plane crashes and lost internet connections, but should I believe in it because there's no evidence saying it isn't there? How about I make up a religion which worships God's shaped like Penis's called Newgroundsism, would you say there's no evidence its not there?

God is nothing more then a Imaginary friend, prove me wrong.

[Warforger]

At 10/11/09 03:12 AM, dizzenbee wrote: The truth is there is not much logic. God created things its hard to imagine because we are not perfect. And if you are atheist can you explain how the size and distance from the sun is EXACTLY right for us not too hot not too cold. DId a bunch of rocks have logic no? Now i can see how you were an athesist and want to be like that but the truth is, every religion some questions may not be answered you must only wait with faith, instead of analizing the wrongness in christianity, look for wrong doing in athesim for instance How come evolution doesn't give us the body parts of animals whatsoever?Try becomig a christian and asking your leader(S for JW) in your group some questions. And have you realized the goverment is against religion and hasn't said a word of atheism

Uhhhh we DO have parts of Animals, we have legs and arms, and hands, just like Monkeys....

As for the government being against religion, its not, it just ignores it, or else we'd have to listen to the "DEATH TO AMERICA BECAUSE ITS FULL OF FAGS"

[dizzenbee]

At 10/11/09 03:16 AM, Warforger wrote: Personally I do not understand the "I don't know that he doesn't exist" if there's no evidence other then just stories then whats the reasoning behind believing in him in the first place. I mean there's no evidence invisible unicorns that cause all plane crashes and lost internet connections, but should I believe in it because there's no evidence saying it isn't there? How about I make up a religion which worships God's shaped like Penis's called Newgroundsism, would you say there's no evidence its not there?

God is nothing more then a Imaginary friend, prove me wrong.

YOu can reason by terms of the Bible why do we all sin?Why do we all die?The devil. The devil (In all religions so dont comment on this) was an angel from god.Ask me a question and i'll reason it.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 10/11/09 01:00 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: So, replying to the ONLY person to post even remotely on topic so far...

You like how I at least gave an attempt to humor the direction this thread was intended for, right?

I'll operate from here on the assumption that the argument thus far is (A <=> B) & (X <=> Y). The next question is, are these premises true?

. . .

So, if there is reality, then there is consciousness; and if there is consciousness, then there is reality; therefore there is reality if and only if there is consciousness (R <=> C). Likewise, if there is no consciousness then there is no reality, and vice versa (~R <=> ~C). But this poses the same problem; in order to determine that the premise (~C => ~R) is true, the premise [R & (C + ~C)] must be determined to be false. And this is where I think your argument collapses, because in order to prove that reality can not exist without consciousness, there must be an observer to prove the point, thereby contradicting the premise you are attempting to prove true and in the process unwittingly proving it false. Thus the truth of the premise of indeterminability without consciousness is itself indeterminable; and if that premise cannot be proven, then no other premise of the argument can be proven, thereby undermining the entire argument.

I realize the futility of trying to prove that reality can not exist without consciousness being that the absence of consciousness necessarily precludes the proving of, well, anything. I'm not THAT witless. :) I suppose the distinction I should have tried to emphasize more is the difference between the attributes of subjective "reality" versus the attributes of objective reality and how those might apply to the idea of individual consciousness versus the idea of a Universal Consciousness. While I do appreciate the formalization you provided of the logic behind it, I feel that "(A <=> B) & (X <=> Y)" doesn't quite capture the nuances of the argument I'd like to make. I don't think formal logic is a suitable means for talking about this sort of stuff but I figured this thread was different-enough to deserve a fun try at it.

Now to everyone else: can we please stop debating semantics and use this thread for its intended purpose?

LOL one can dream!

At 10/11/09 01:20 AM, poxpower wrote: I don't think that by definition you can be an agnostic believer in something.

"gnosis" means knowledge, so, to be gnostic towards something means you either do or can have knowledge of that something, and to be agnostic means you either don't or can't have knowledge of that something.

How can you believe something exist while at the same time holding the position that it's impossible to ascertain whether that thing exists or not?

Because our ability to ascertain the truth value of various claims (e.g. the existence of something) is dependent upon a wide variety of changing factors e.g. available body of knowledge, immediate sensory input, mental/emotional states, technological advancement, time.

Now if someone 500 years ago claimed that there were invisible living things in the air, on the walls, on the floors, on our skin, and in our guts that directly affected our health and well-being... he'd be 100% correct, but it would be impossible for him to prove it.

That's basically admitting you're an idiot.

I think your shallowness of thought is more or less an admission of your own idiocy.

Do you think researchers would bother researching anything if a state of uncertainty was enough for them not to bother? Isn't that the entire point of exploration and primary research? "I'm not sure it's even there, and I'm not sure HOW exactly I'd find it, but I'm going to keep looking for it anyway." ??? It's not like the people who first crossed the Atlantic were certain that they were actually going to touch land on the other side. Hell, people back then even thought they might fall off the edge of the earth if they sailed too far.

So, it's basically either move forward with a premise and run the risk of being deemed an idiot by your critics, or stay put and go nowhere, like a coward, because the leap of faith seems too risky for you to attempt.

[dizzenbee]

At 10/11/09 03:18 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/11/09 03:12 AM, dizzenbee wrote: The truth is there is not much logic. God created things its hard to imagine because we are not perfect. And if you are atheist can you explain how the size and distance from the sun is EXACTLY right for us not too hot not too cold. DId a bunch of rocks have logic no? Now i can see how you were an athesist and want to be like that but the truth is, every religion some questions may not be answered you must only wait with faith, instead of analizing the wrongness in christianity, look for wrong doing in athesim for instance How come evolution doesn't give us the body parts of animals whatsoever?Try becomig a christian and asking your leader(S for JW) in your group some questions. And have you realized the goverment is against religion and hasn't said a word of atheism

Uhhhh we DO have parts of Animals, we have legs and arms, and hands, just like Monkeys....

As for the government being against religion, its not, it just ignores it, or else we'd have to listen to the "DEATH TO AMERICA BECAUSE ITS FULL OF FAGS"

I believe almost all animals have those. I mean internally we dont have the same digestive system or blood system etc. how can we have different shape microboes then our ancestor. God didn't say oh i am going to make humans he made logic. Therefore logic never ends am i right?

[dizzenbee]

Have you ever thought that that religion, or sub division, was wrong and that you need explaining and maybye a new religion?Baptist give food drives Jehovah's witness make houses for free and provide information explaining the Bible for free, and i believe catholics have free money every week along with a food drive (Hint: im one of those religions)

[yurgenburgen]

At 10/10/09 03:52 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: -Atheists are welcome to make an effort to sway me in the other direction, provided they follow the same rules as set forth for the theists. I also ask that theists be allowed the opening argument, as the topic is primarily meant for them.

I'm not interested in converting anyone. Since we are discussing this stuff I will state my position. I am an Atheist for the following reasons:

There is no evidence to suggest/prove that there is a god, or any number of gods.

The multitude of gods people believe in shows that it is impossible for me to choose the 'right god' anyway, so even if I had any interest in being religious it would still make logical sense to remain on the fence as opposed to diving into a belief system.

All attempts that I have seen to explain or prove god's existence in any way have failed abysmally.

The idea of god greatly contradicts the reason for believing in him/her/it in the first place. The universe is extremely complex. It makes no sense to 'explain' the complexity of the universe by saying that an omnipotent being which must by definition be even more complex than the universe existed before the universe. Essentially: If god created the universe, what created god?

A logical progression between Theism and immorality can be easily observed. There is no such progression between Atheism and immorality.

I dislike the way religion is imposed on children from a young age.

The sheer technicality of not being to prove that there isn't a god is nowhere near enough 'evidence' (not that it is evidence anyway, but I couldn't think of a better word) to suggest that there is a god out there. We can't prove that fairies don't exist, but that's not a good enough reason to believe in them. It boils down to a matter of probability, and if I were to say that the chance of there being a god is like a drop in the ocean I would be making a vast overstatement.

Humans aren't special.

[dizzenbee]

Humans aren't special.

Humans are special : Earth was created to be inhabited. All of the animals were suppose to be under Adam's command. Really God is care.

[yurgenburgen]

At 10/11/09 04:25 AM, dizzenbee wrote: Humans are special : Earth was created to be inhabited. All of the animals were suppose to be under Adam's command. Really God is care.

Earth wasn't created with any "intentions". We exist only because of the process of natural selection. In the cosmic sense we are no more special than single-celled organisms.

[poxpower]

At 10/11/09 03:19 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Because our ability to ascertain the truth value of various claims (e.g. the existence of something) is dependent upon a wide variety of changing factors e.g. available body of knowledge, immediate sensory input, mental/emotional states, technological advancement, time.sdfdsfdsfdsagsdafdsaf

Here read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_th eism
Agnostic theist. They're WRONG by definition.

"Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable."

They believe something THEY ADMIT CAN'T BE VALIDATED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

It's like an carnivorous vegan or a towering midget.