Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think at this point we can ALL agree that we don't really NEED the belief in God to ensure that we behave well. But you still can admit that it is good to believe in a higher power other than ourselves since you know there are though people don't realize it or want to, take the sun for example.
The Sun is a huge ball of plasma radiating who knows how much energy that ultimately keeps us alive, there are also a few more planets er stars around I don't think are in our system, so thats a few more.
Who knows whats outside of our system man, if you're an intelligent atheist then you dare not deny that if this whole land of existance was created out of chance n randomness, theres no doubting whats out there.
So with that I say atheists really sohuldn't believe in "nothing" they should believe in everything and anything, you're idea of randomness may have even sparked God for all you know.
Whatever anyway, doesn't matter to me, just wanted to let u know.

At 11/11/08 07:17 PM, PurePress wrote: The Sun is a huge ball of plasma radiating who knows how much energy that ultimately keeps us alive,

;;;;;;;;;
I've said that before here.
If you really need proof of something to worship ,a power that gives everything on this planet life, its the Sun. (and we need water etc)
Is it a wonder that early peoples worshipped the Sun & the moon as well as Mother Earth .
Kinda makes sense if you need PROOF of something instead of blind faith.

At 11/11/08 04:03 PM, poxpower wrote: You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

i'm starting to see a pattern.

At 11/11/08 04:03 PM, poxpower wrote:
You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?
I mean, you just keep missing a super-obvious point: religion is built on faith, not evidence, and that is ultimately a bad thing.

Could you explain how looking at your surroundings and making a conclusion (even if it's wrong) is not based off evidence? The evidence being, everything?

It's not a scientific deduction, wooooah. But it still comes from looking at the same thing (the world.)

At 11/11/08 07:42 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Is it a wonder that early peoples worshipped the Sun & the moon as well as Mother Earth .
Kinda makes sense if you need PROOF of something instead of blind faith.

I don't think there's one single that that wasn't sacred/worshipped by some people at some point.
It's insane.
Tons of dances, words, animals, insects, rocks, streams. There's millions of stupid stories about how this rock and that tree are related to some spirit of the ant and the gerbil.
And then there's the christians, where everything is a miracle. Kids is born? Miracle. Man overcomes minor obstacle? Miracle! Guy does minor sleight of hand? Miracle! Something unexplained? Miracle! Every time anything positive happens it's a frickin miracle to SOMEONE.

At 11/11/08 07:54 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

Could you explain how looking at your surroundings and making a conclusion (even if it's wrong) is not based off evidence? The evidence being, everything?

Huh if your conclusion is wrong and makes no sense, then it's not based on the evidence, is it?
"Wow a hot dog, I wrongly assume that proves Owls have magic powers".
How is that based on hot dogs? You just said "hot dog" in your sentence, doesn't mean anything.

At 11/11/08 04:03 PM, poxpower wrote:
You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Course not. You use faulty analogies, ignore context, shoddy evidence (which you don't even follow your own scruitiny for submitting; You told Proteas you wanted the actual studies, not an article talking about them, then you based your own argument on an article talking about a study.....and a shit wiki page), wander from point to point, muddle your arguments, and just generally make points that at times seem so obscure, vague, pointless, or wrong, or roam the boards what at times seems like you're more intent on picking fights and antagonizing people than contributing that I wonder whether or not you're actually a 23 year old with some semblances of a college degree, or just a 15 year old who gets his kicks out of venting Real Life inadequacies over internet forums.

Are we clear with each other now?

I mean, you just keep missing a super-obvious point: religion is built on faith, not evidence, and that is ultimately a bad thing.

Because the world is just that simple.

At 11/11/08 08:10 PM, poxpower wrote:
Huh if your conclusion is wrong and makes no sense, then it's not based on the evidence, is it?
"Wow a hot dog, I wrongly assume that proves Owls have magic powers".
How is that based on hot dogs? You just said "hot dog" in your sentence, doesn't mean anything.

A correct analogy would be, "I think this hot dog was made by owls with magic powers."

Huh if your conclusion is wrong and makes no sense, then it's not based on the evidence, is it?

You gotta be shitting me. A 5 year old could refute this:

My evidence for you being an idiot is your forum posts.

You could very well be ranked the #1 public intellectual with an IQ comparable to Einstein, completely unbeknownst to me.

My theory would be obviously wrong, but still based on the evidence available at the time of making the theory.

If I was presented evidence you were not a moron, I would thus have to alter my theory in accordance with the new evidence.

You know this as well as I do. Because it's the Scientific Method you claim to know and love.
See the step marked "revise"?
It's there because scientists know a theory is only as good as the evidence available. In fact, they even have a fancy term called "Superseded theories". Another Quod erat demonstrandum.

There, I just had to educate you on the Scientific Method, because it's quite clear you don't actually know what it is. Can you just moderate the forum and post in general henceforth?

I mean really:

Huh if your conclusion is wrong and makes no sense, then it's not based on the evidence, is it?

From the man who once said:
"I'm smarter than you. I'll always be smarter than you and you can't catch me. DOES IT PISS YOU OFF? bwahaha maybe cellardoor, elfer and theMason have a good chance of catching me, but you? Never."

Omg Iperator, you burned his ass!

At 1/18/07 11:57 AM, EternalRabbit wrote: you're wrong! go to hell!

All people like you do is make Atheists hate you more. "Go to hell" is not an arguement. It's a playground innsult.

At 11/11/08 01:29 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 11/11/08 01:14 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/11/08 01:09 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Guess whose fault that is? The PEOPLE running those countries.

If they didn't have religion, they'd make up something else to control people.

And we'd criticize that thing just as much. I don't see your argument.

I think that's probably part of the problem.

Blame is put on the method, and the root of the problem, the people who actually run the thing, are left to their own devices.

You're putting criticism on religion, patriotism, perhaps race, ethnicity, political platform, and whatever other means shit is accomplished, which leaves the cause oddly escaping criticism.

You blame religion for being used, but not always the person using it.

Course that would require people you know.....be intelligent enough to realize religion, nothing more than a social institution, is a means to an end, and not the root cause of such problems......

I blame religion because it's so usable. It's not the bomb, I know that, you need some nasty people controlling the strings, but religion definitely is, and has always been, the gasoline. It helps fuel conflicts all over the world, not necessary by being the cause and root, but because it divides people. It gives them justification. It makes the world into "us" and "them".

We certainly don't say nukes are completely okay because after all, it's the guy pushing the red button, not the nuke itself that is dangerous.

At 11/11/08 01:35 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 11/11/08 01:14 PM, Drakim wrote: Anyways, I'd love to hear a non-religious reason to mutilate female genitalia, tell children that masturbation is evil, and burn women for crimes that does not exist.

National pride.

Nationalism isn't really that diffrent from religion. But still, nationalism can't produce moral authority by itself. It requires something more to get "directed". Or are you going to claim that some countries pride somehow by itself deems masturbation evil?

I swear Drakim, sometimes it seems like you don't even acknowledge the Age of Colonialism ever existed..... :(

Most of my arguing is about things that are happening right now. Sure, nationalism and lots of other isms can cause real havoc. But it was religion that destroyed the world trade centers. It's religion that fuels the terrorists. and it's religion that makes the middle east conflicts go on and on and on.

I'm not going to excuse that because "geeze, some time ago, there was this other system of thought that could produce the same effects".

If religion was replaced by something which was just as nasty, at least we'd get logical evil actions. :o

"Same genocide, half the calories!"

It would be easier to fight. Tell me, how does one deal with Islamic terrorists except to absolutely destroy them? They are on a mission from God. There is no cure for that.

Wouldn't the world be an easier place if your enemies was more like the soviet union? All you had to do to crush them was to simply be better and more effective, thus proving communism inferior, until the point where it collapsed.

Imagine if communists thought that communism was God's law. it wouldn't matter what happened then, because capitalism is by definition evil for them now. After all, God said so. It wouldn't matter if the Soviet collapsed under it's own weight, and America lead the world into an age of prosperity. It's evil and wicked to the bone, and must be fought with any means possible.

Our godless communists at least have the possibility to mature and see that the government controlling everything isn't all rainbows and sunshine.

Better idea:
Instead of replacing religion with something that produces the same results (aformentioned scientific racism), you replace the people producing the evil actions.

It's like you're idea of healthy cooking is to replace lard with butter. Same result, but one goes down easier.

Perhaps butter doesn't have the long term effect of making people hate everybody around them and the world itself? : D

And anyone who doesn't think that was a fuckin brilliant metaphor with what Drakim said needs to slay themselves post haste.

It was nice.

The whole argument is stupid. Relgion cannot go against science. All religions say that we have free will there for u can believe anything u want.
Relgion is also based on historical fact. If u look in most religious text u can find that what is writen can be proven through science. Relgious text was also not ment to taken literaly what is writen is exaggerated to make it seem more interesting.
Besides science is not ment to go against relgion it is just ment to find out knowledge through facts and logic.

At 11/11/08 10:00 PM, Imperator wrote:

My evidence for you being an idiot is your forum posts.

Yeah that makes sense, but jack was saying that as long as you mention anything as "evidence" it counts.
"Plants are evidence of whales" is a logical, evidence-based conclusion in jacks' insane little world.

Basically he goes

A = B
so: C

Which makes no sense.

You know this as well as I do. Because it's the Scientific Method you claim to know and love.

And now you're straw-manning again trying to pretend like I said science doesn't work. Seriously be more careful with reading what people say.

At 11/12/08 09:24 AM, Necroiriy wrote: The whole argument is stupid. Relgion cannot go against science. All religions say that we have free will there for u can believe anything u want.
Relgion is also based on historical fact. If u look in most religious text u can find that what is writen can be proven through science. Relgious text was also not ment to taken literaly what is writen is exaggerated to make it seem more interesting.
Besides science is not ment to go against relgion it is just ment to find out knowledge through facts and logic.

My thoughts exactly, sadly some people here don't believe in free will n many people here try and make bullshit of the fact that there is science in religion n that logic/reason/science n religion goes hand in hand no matter how hard you don't want it to.
I'll rmemeber this part n bring it up on later occasions.

Let's face it; we're all arguing semantics here, because as temporal, corporal, and above all non-omniscient entities, we simply will NEVER have enough real-life experiences to provide sufficient evidence to prove... well, just about any fucking thing, really.

I mean, YAY! THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A BIG BANG! is great and all, but it's not exactly... how should I say.. APPLICABLE? I see a homeless guy on the street, do I think to myself "We both evolved on the same planet, I should give'm a dollar for brew." or do I think "We both were created by the same god, I should give'm a dollar for brew"?

In the end, the system of belief is irrelevant if the end decision is the same. By the same token, I could see the same bum, and think "This guy's clearly not evolved to his environment. Fuck'em. He ain't gettin my cash" OR "God just hates this guy because he's a dirty sinner. Fuck'em. He ain't gettin my cash"

My point here is that whether or not you give the guy a dollar is more about how much spare cash in your wallet you have than what beliefs you ascribe to; Science or Religion is just a way of taking the honus of the decision off of yourself and trying to claim your action was because of circumstance instead of an internal decision. In that manner, they're really the same thing; something to take our minds off the fact that we're not in control of things, and to create some illusion of power through understanding.

You can't just group beliefs together and go "this is science" or "this is religion" I mean, yes, certain beliefs only work in suites; you can't believe in Adam and Eve and Lucy the bipedal ape at the same time, but in the end, both of those stories are irrelevant because they don't make ham sandwiches appear for lunch.

My point here is we need to focus LESS on things that are irrelevant, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how many quarks constitute an electron and focus on more important things, like what kind of lifestyle will make life easier for all of us.

Humans aren't in charge of physics, and we aren't in charge of angels. All you really have to do is switch some terminology around, and both groups are saying the same things.

At 11/12/08 12:22 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/11/08 10:00 PM, Imperator wrote:

My evidence for you being an idiot is your forum posts.

Yeah that makes sense, but jack was saying that as long as you mention anything as "evidence" it counts.

I didn't say that at all. I said anything being in a space could be evidence of something creating that thing.

I don't see how you confuse that for whatever you thought I meant, which is basically, you thinking that I don't know how broad and stupid of a statement that is. (Both of those concepts)

But the way you paint is just inaccurate, and not in line with the topic and is not what I was saying. It's just as vapid, but less stupid.

Evidence would be, in this topic, evidence of a creator.

A creator can possibly create anything.

That's what I mean.

At 11/11/08 07:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 11/10/08 10:49 PM, heroicspatula wrote:

At 11/9/08 11:01 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 11/9/08 08:30 PM, heroicspatula wrote: This will forever be an ongoing, however pointless, argument.

Critcism is never pointless. If everybody said "Meh it's good enough" we'd never acomplish anything.

I don't mean the criticism is pointless. I enjoy that. I was refering to the arguement over which one is right. Neither side can ever be proven.:

I've just critcised your point. How is this criticism in this thread any different from any other criticism? Are there levels of criticism?

You missed the point. What I was saying is that in an argument between Faith and Facts, neither side side can when.
Facts=something known and proven
Faith=Belief in something that can or has not been proven.
I was just saying that it is hard to change someone's faith with facts.

Neither side will ever win.

Since there are thousands upon thousands of different beliefs, opinions and groups of different sorts what sides are you talking about?

Not so much :specific sides, just science Vs. Religion as a whole

I'm pretty sure there isn't a fine line somewhere showing Religion on one side and Science on the other.

I know that. Since the thread is SCIENCE VS. RELIGION, I'm arguing as if there were a fine line.
It makes it easier and takes up less space.. :)

Science can find as much facts as it can, but people will always have religion.

That depends. It seems that the majority of Religions put answers to questions that haven't been logically answered. So if we answer all the really interesting questions what will they believe in afterwards?

People will always be asking questions, which will always lead to more, and so on and so on.
As it becomes harder and harder to answer questions, some people will turn to religion. I really think that what i consider the two main questions "where did we come from and what happens when we die?" will never be answered. That's why people turn to religion.

We know both those answers. We evolved to what we are now and when we die we decompose. Then some sort of ceremony is performed. However we do not know on what caused the Big Bang. A lot of Theists claim God caused this. But if we find the cause is a natural event will they still remain Religious? If we find a natural cause for everything will there stil be believers?

And you've just repeated what I said but holding doubt on answering certain questions.

I think people still would, but until then, no one knows. I don't think will ever know, but if we do I'll get back to you.

The majority of religious people do trust science, except when it comes to creationism and evolution(the major source of strife between them)

This has been carried on for thousands of years. However the creationist numbers have been decreasing.

True, though that is still probably the largest argument between the two.

But there still are many more. However the Creationism Vs. Science arguments are the most publicised.

thats what I said. at least we agree there.

Personally, i find both side to have their fair share of idiots. From Christians who refuse to believe that micro-evolution has been proven,

Actually it's macro-evolution. And not every Creationist is a Christian.

I meant micro-evolution(small changes in a species), not macro(the big evolution). I believe in Macro-evolution, but not many creationists do. On that point, i was again just generalizing to save time.

No you were wrong. Creationist accept Microevolution in order to explain how Noah got the ancestors of animals today on the Ark because it's obviously impossible to fit from two to seven of every species of animal on the Ark. They claim there were less sub-species back then.

I did say micro-evolution, once someone corrected me on it. I think the idea that there were less sub species is really far out there, and i bet you'll agree.

to professors who believe that praying to a god is a sign of insanity,

May I have a name and a quote of such professor?

I was basing this of a a story a heard on the news a few years ago. Christian students protested, and i think the professor was fired. Regardless, here is a guy trying to argue that.
<a>http://www.philforhumanity.com/Faith_
is_a_Mental_Disease.html<a>

I've just sent an email asking the qualifications of the Author of this website to see if he is an actual professor. But there is no full name on the site so I can check.

I doubt that person is. The story I was talking about was on the news a year or two ago. The only reason i put a link to that guy is because that is close to what this professor(from the news) supposedly said.

both sides prove themselves to be close-minded. I'm agnostic, and believe in what I call the Ant Farm theory. The basic foundation of the universe, such as the big bang and all the laws of nature, were created by a higher being(be it god, allah, jaweh, buddha, zeus whatever). However, after everything was set in place and his ants(living organisms) were put in there, he/she/it just stepped back to watch and see what would happen. The being doesn't help or interfere, it just watches us for its own enjoyment.

If you believe in a supernatural deity then you're not agnostic.

recheck your definitions. your right that being agnostic means that one is not sure of the existence of a higher or not

I don't need to you've just contradicted in yourself.

were created by a higher being(be it god, allah, jaweh, buddha, zeus whatever).

Agonstic theism.

there are multiple forms of Agnosticism. I cover 3 areas of this belief; theistic, strong, and apathetic. This means that i believe in a higher power, though it is beyond the scope of humanity to prove or disprove this, and since this being(who may or may not exist) obviously doesn't care for us the question is totally academic.

So you believe in God but you're Apathetic and don't know if God exists.

lol wha?

difficult for people to understand what it means. I believe there is a god/higher power(theistic part),
but it can't ever be proven by humanity(strong), and since I don't think this power cares anymore(apathetic part), then worrying about whether it does or doesn't won't change anything.

You're kind've bending definitons there. If you don't know God exists how could you believe in it?

Its called faith. Isn't that Religion though? believing in the unprovable?

:I look forward to seeing this continue. I enjoy it.

glad not to be arguing with idiots...

At 11/12/08 01:00 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

In the end, the system of belief is irrelevant if the end decision is the same.

You nuts?
People in India, for instance, believed in caste systems. Within that system, you're encouraged to shit on the poor and helpless because THEY DESERVE IT. People in ancient egypt weren't encouraged to strive for better, they knew their place. The pharaoh was the God on earth for fuck's sake.

There's a trillion ways to exploit religion to turn people away from what they'd do in the first place if they thought everyone was roughly equal, as biology points out.

The MAIN point here is that religion alters decisions in a completely dangerous and volatile way. One second you've got people helping each other because they're afraid of werewolves and evil spirits, and the next you have people sacrificing kids to deities and enslaving tribes to feed them to crocodiles or skin them alive and make teeth necklaces. That's so insane.

Just basing every decision on the information available, you'd have to stretch reality really really really far to justify that kind of insane atrocity, while you wouldn't have to think 5 seconds for reasons why it's good to help others.

Every turn, religion has men putting themselves above others.

My point here is we need to focus LESS on things that are irrelevant, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how many quarks constitute an electron

Science is possibly the most relevant, knowable and important thing ever :O

At 11/12/08 01:14 PM, Helicopterz wrote:

I didn't say that at all. I said anything being in a space could be evidence of something creating that thing.

No, you don't understand what I told you.
You can't say "existence is evidence of God". It's not. That doesn't make any sense. It's a complete non-sequitur, like "pancakes are evidence of dogs".
Completely unrelated as a standalone sentence.

You have to actually EXPLAIN why you think A is evidence of B and IF YOU ARE CORRECT and ONLY IF YOU ARE CORRECT then you can claim that A was evidence of B.

p.s. the watchmaker argument is retarded to the point of making anyone cry with tears of despair at its futility.

At 11/12/08 04:48 PM, heroicspatula wrote: You missed the point. What I was saying is that in an argument between Faith and Facts, neither side side can when.

If facts are something known then by default they've already won.

Facts=something known and proven
Faith=Belief in something that can or has not been proven.
I was just saying that it is hard to change someone's faith with facts.

Actually it's pretty easy.

thats what I said. at least we agree there.

Just because it's the most publicised it doesn't mean it's the most popular. And as you'll see there aren't very many Creationists on this website.

I did say micro-evolution, once someone corrected me on it. I think the idea that there were less sub species is really far out there, and i bet you'll agree.

From Christians who refuse to believe that micro-evolution has been proven,

It's not microevolution creationists mainly disbelieve in MACROevolution.

I doubt that person is. The story I was talking about was on the news a year or two ago. The only reason i put a link to that guy is because that is close to what this professor(from the news) supposedly said.

Linky of news story.

Agonstic theism.

I don't support these sub-definition simply because they cause confusion and when you use these the definition of the words won't match what you believe.

difficult for people to understand what it means. I believe there is a god/higher power(theistic part),
but it can't ever be proven by humanity(strong)

And I've heard this by many Theists simply because Science is based on natural occurences and Religion deals with supernatual ones.

and since I don't think this power cares anymore(apathetic part), then worrying about whether it does or doesn't won't change anything.

Which would make you a deist.

Its called faith. Isn't that Religion though? believing in the unprovable?

Trust and belief in someone or something which is often unprovable.

I look forward to seeing this continue. I enjoy it.

glad not to be arguing with idiots...

At 11/12/08 06:42 PM, Brick-top wrote:

If facts are something known then by default they've already won.

All opinion, but i would tend to agree with you.

Facts=something known and proven
Faith=Belief in something that can or has not been proven.
I was just saying that it is hard to change someone's faith with facts.

Actually it's pretty easy.

depends on how much that person believes in their faith.

thats what I said. at least we agree there.

Just because it's the most publicised it doesn't mean it's the most popular. And as you'll see there aren't very many Creationists on this website.

When did I say it was popular? I only mentioned it being the biggest arguement

I did say micro-evolution, once someone corrected me on it. I think the idea that there were less sub species is really far out there, and i bet you'll agree.

From Christians who refuse to believe that micro-evolution has been proven,

It's not microevolution creationists mainly disbelieve in MACROevolution.

Your right. Sorry, I get those mixed up sometimes. Thanks for that. I agree with you.

I doubt that person is. The story I was talking about was on the news a year or two ago. The only reason i put a link to that guy is because that is close to what this professor(from the news) supposedly said.

Linky of news story.

I couldn't find it, thats why i linked to that one guy. I'll try and find it for you though.

Agonstic theism.

I don't support these sub-definition simply because they cause confusion and when you use these the definition of the words won't match what you believe.

difficult for people to understand what it means. I believe there is a god/higher power(theistic part),
but it can't ever be proven by humanity(strong)

And I've heard this by many Theists simply because Science is based on natural occurences and Religion deals with supernatual ones.

Whats wrong with that?

and since I don't think this power cares anymore(apathetic part), then worrying about whether it does or doesn't won't change anything.

Which would make you a deist.

somewhat. I think there could be any number of higher powers, deist believe in one. Deist also believe it can be proven that a higher power exist through human reasoning, I don't.
That was a good identification of my belief though.

Its called faith. Isn't that Religion though? believing in the unprovable?

Trust and belief in someone or something which is often unprovable.

I want to ask you, why are you atheist? Why don't you believe?

Well I still say those are two different concepts.

A creator is related to everything because it is assumed that it created everything. SO there's the relation.

Dogs are not related to everything. All dogs are not related to pancakes.

If you were in a room, however, with just a dog, and a pancake, you were just reborn, in that instance, no prior knowledge, would you not assume there is some sort of connection between the dog and the pancake?

It does not matter what anyone really says because this conflict between science and religion has been around for a long time and people have strong views on one side or the other. The problem is with religion u cannot change peoples beliefs because they are what they believe in and with science u cannot say it is wrong because science is proven fact so nothing can really be done. We can only make compromises.

At 11/12/08 06:42 PM, Brick-top wrote: If facts are something known then by default they've already won.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? The faith comes in and shits all over those silly little facts, kicks 'em in the junk and takes their lunch money. Cuz who can argue against someone who just covers their ears and goes "NUH-UH!!"?

See when you guys say stuff like that it makes mee wonder if you get it AT ALL.

"facts win."

There's more to it than that I think. I think that you are the deciding factors, and you can believe whatever you want, and still get shit done, it just depends on you.

Unfortunatly my computer crashed when I was typing a responce so this one will be brief.

At 11/12/08 07:29 PM, heroicspatula wrote: depends on how much that person believes in their faith.

Creationist claims are usually due to a lack of knowledge on particular subjects. Educate them more on the facts, and they'll stop being a creationist. It's easy as that.

thats what I said. at least we agree there.

Just because it's the most publicised it doesn't mean it's the most popular. And as you'll see there aren't very many Creationists on this website.

When did I say it was popular? I only mentioned it being the biggest arguement

Biggest, largest, most popular it's all different grains of sugar in the same coffee.

I've rarely had creationist debates on here.

I couldn't find it, thats why i linked to that one guy. I'll try and find it for you though.

Cheers

And I've heard this by many Theists simply because Science is based on natural occurences and Religion deals with supernatual ones.

Whats wrong with that?

So if you're an agnostic theist for saying that you believe but it's unprovable then you're making the same claim as about 10-14 other people I've spoken to who call themselves Theist.

and since I don't think this power cares anymore(apathetic part), then worrying about whether it does or doesn't won't change anything.

Which would make you a deist.

somewhat. I think there could be any number of higher powers, deist believe in one. Deist also believe it can be proven that a higher power exist through human reasoning, I don't.
That was a good identification of my belief though.

Deist: a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it.

You: I'm agnostic, and believe in what I call the Ant Farm theory. The basic foundation of the universe, such as the big bang and all the laws of nature, were created by a higher being(be it god, allah, jaweh, buddha, zeus whatever). However, after everything was set in place and his ants(living organisms) were put in there, he/she/it just stepped back to watch and see what would happen. The being doesn't help or interfere, it just watches us for its own enjoyment.

It's pretty much the same.

Its called faith. Isn't that Religion though? believing in the unprovable?

Trust and belief in someone or something which is often unprovable.

I want to ask you, why are you atheist? Why don't you believe?

As you have already noticed I'm incredibly skeptical (Example: Asking for a link to your claim about the profressor)

So if someone says:
"If you drop a penny from the Empire State Building it could slice all the way through a body from head to toe"

I'd ask for the penny's rate of velocity, wind currents, accuracy rates, is the penny falling on it's side or flat, the amount of force needed for a penny to break through a human body etc

I don't accept ANY claim unless it can be tested and observed. Otherwise the claim is useless to me.

At 11/12/08 09:45 PM, Brick-top wrote: Unfortunatly my computer crashed when I was typing a responce so this one will be brief.

Sorry about that.

At 11/12/08 07:29 PM, heroicspatula wrote: depends on how much that person believes in their faith.

Creationist claims are usually due to a lack of knowledge on particular subjects. Educate them more on the facts, and they'll stop being a creationist. It's easy as that.

For some it is, but it still depends on how strong that persons faith is.

thats what I said. at least we agree there.

Just because it's the most publicised it doesn't mean it's the most popular. And as you'll see there aren't very many Creationists on this website.

When did I say it was popular? I only mentioned it being the biggest arguement

Biggest, largest, most popular it's all different grains of sugar in the same coffee.

I've rarely had creationist debates on here.

It was only an example I used, it got turned into a debate. I don't believe in it.

I couldn't find it, thats why i linked to that one guy. I'll try and find it for you though.

Cheers

Lots of fun, lemme tell ya...

And I've heard this by many Theists simply because Science is based on natural occurences and Religion deals with supernatual ones.

Whats wrong with that?

So if you're an agnostic theist for saying that you believe but it's unprovable then you're making the same claim as about 10-14 other people I've spoken to who call themselves Theist.

Allright then, thats fine by me.

and since I don't think this power cares anymore(apathetic part), then worrying about whether it does or doesn't won't change anything.

Which would make you a deist.

somewhat. I think there could be any number of higher powers, deist believe in one. Deist also believe it can be proven that a higher power exist through human reasoning, I don't.
That was a good identification of my belief though.

Deist: a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it.

You: I'm agnostic, and believe in what I call the Ant Farm theory. The basic foundation of the universe, such as the big bang and all the laws of nature, were created by a higher being(be it god, allah, jaweh, buddha, zeus whatever). However, after everything was set in place and his ants(living organisms) were put in there, he/she/it just stepped back to watch and see what would happen. The being doesn't help or interfere, it just watches us for its own enjoyment.

It's pretty much the same.

It is basically, just telling someone whose arguing with you that your a strong apathetic theistic agnositc usually makes idiots dwell on that as opposed to the subject. Consider more me being a dick I guess.

Its called faith. Isn't that Religion though? believing in the unprovable?

Trust and belief in someone or something which is often unprovable.

I want to ask you, why are you atheist? Why don't you believe?

As you have already noticed I'm incredibly skeptical (Example: Asking for a link to your claim about the profressor)

So if someone says:
"If you drop a penny from the Empire State Building it could slice all the way through a body from head to toe"

I'd ask for the penny's rate of velocity, wind currents, accuracy rates, is the penny falling on it's side or flat, the amount of force needed for a penny to break through a human body etc

I don't accept ANY claim unless it can be tested and observed. Otherwise the claim is useless to me.

K, thanks for telling me. I'm just really interested in intelligent peoples'(I assume you are, sure seem to be) opinions regarding why they are for or agianst something, be it Religion, taxes, whatever.

At 11/12/08 10:06 PM, heroicspatula wrote: I'm just really interested in intelligent peoples'(I assume you are, sure seem to be) opinions regarding why they are for or agianst something, be it Religion, taxes, whatever.

This is a lie.

Yeah only I'm actually interested in learning things I think we've established that.

At 11/12/08 11:31 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 11/12/08 10:06 PM, heroicspatula wrote: I'm just really interested in intelligent peoples'(I assume you are, sure seem to be) opinions regarding why they are for or agianst something, be it Religion, taxes, whatever.

This is a lie.

What, my reason for asking, or you being intelligent?
If its my reason, I really don't care if your for or agianst something, just why.
If its your intelligence, you've sure as hell fooled me.

At 11/12/08 11:59 PM, heroicspatula wrote: If its your intelligence, you've sure as hell fooled me.

This means I'm very deceptive and shouldn't be trusted.