NationStates

edgy, condesending, unkempt and rude

its one thing to not believe, but another to be ISIS level about it

Dyakovo wrote:

Valaran wrote:
I wouldn't say that it is clear that I don't believe. That I don't know if I believe would to my mind suggests that it is anything but clear.

I never mentioned strength of non-belief being the definition of atheism. On the contrary, your view seems to be that I need sufficient belief in a deity in order not to be an atheist. But whether I have the sufficient level of belief is unknown.

Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

There is the middle ground of Agnostics. They literally do not know if they believe in a God or not.

Dyakovo wrote:

Valaran wrote:
I wouldn't say that it is clear that I don't believe. That I don't know if I believe would to my mind suggests that it is anything but clear.

I never mentioned strength of non-belief being the definition of atheism. On the contrary, your view seems to be that I need sufficient belief in a deity in order not to be an atheist. But whether I have the sufficient level of belief is unknown.

Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

Because neutrality or simply not caring are no longer options in the american culture. You are a communist or a fascist. A worker or a thinker. A enemy or a friend.

How horrible, why can't you guys act like great white north Canada where population is tightly knit enough to give a damn about the fellow man beside them regardless of if they are friend or foe.

Asterdan wrote:

Eastern Equestria wrote:
Well frankly you shouldn't. The human body and the world we live in are very far from perfect, and do more to harm us than help us quite honestly. It'd be more apt to state that we've been unintelligently designed.

'

Did I say we were done cooking?

We're never going to be done "cooking". That's not an argument.

Either way, we tend to live long, healthy lives.

Many, many of us actually don't.

We're at the top of the food chain.

Technically we're not.

Society has caused the world to end up in the mess it's in.

Society doesn't cause birth defects or natural disasters. Society didn't design human beings to consume food and breath through the same hole, which literally causes thousands of deaths a year.

Dyakovo wrote:

Valaran wrote:I wouldn't say that it is clear that I don't believe. That I don't know if I believe would to my mind suggests that it is anything but clear.

I never mentioned strength of non-belief being the definition of atheism. On the contrary, your view seems to be that I need sufficient belief in a deity in order not to be an atheist. But whether I have the sufficient level of belief is unknown.

Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

I don't agree with the bit you underlined.

And I think that is where we reach our fundamental disagreement.

If the belief level is unknown (due to a lack of knowledge in the deity's existence or non-existence) then the position cannot be definitively determined.

Asterdan wrote:

New DeCapito wrote:So what you're saying here, is that if the Bible had been created now, it would have been explained by Science?
Doesn't this imply that there is no need for Christianity?
You just made an argument against yourself.

No, because without Christianity we wouldn't have the spiritual side. I'm saying creation, etc. would have been explained more scientifically, God created Science. We'd still have the spiritual side to look at.

Eastern Equestria wrote:
Well frankly you shouldn't. The human body and the world we live in are very far from perfect, and do more to harm us than help us quite honestly. It'd be more apt to state that we've been unintelligently designed.

'

Did I say we were done cooking? Either way, we tend to live long, healthy lives. We're at the top of the food chain. Society has caused the world to end up in the mess that it is today.

Creepoc Infinite wrote:First of all, screw you, second of all, you are 5000% wrong.
Third, explain your logic for this opinion
And fourth, I say the same about theism (for the most part)

1. I'd rather not.
2. 98% of statistics are made up on the spot
3. Everything just fits too well together. This all randomly happening just doesn't make sense. I had another thing to say, but my mind strayed and I forgot what it was...
4. How is it bleak? We look forward to living good lives, having fun, and then going on to spend eternity in an amazing land. Atheism well.... when you're done, you're done.

1. What spiritual side? Just saying god, his pimping angels, those emo angels, and the devil, and their respective realms exist. Without providing any proof, when (as it is a scientific book) all other things do get proof?
2.Human nature tends to be the cause of strife in society, not the other way around.
3.1234 And how is everyone not with god getting sent to his personal barbecue forever any better?

Asterdan wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Sauce?

Yes, I like sauce. Honeymustard is amazing.

I accept your admission that you lied.

Dyakovo wrote:If you "don't know if you believe", then it is clear that you don't currently believe, ergo you are (currently at least) an atheist. Atheism is not, as you seem to believe "a strong belief in the lack of a deity", it is the lack of belief in a deity (or deities).

No... that would be "Agnosticism", which is not knowing, they believe there COULD be a God, they just don't know. Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism isn't a third position. If you're agnostic, you're still either a theist or an atheist.

New DeCapito wrote:

Asterdan wrote:
No, because without Christianity we wouldn't have the spiritual side. I'm saying creation, etc. would have been explained more scientifically, God created Science. We'd still have the spiritual side to look at.

Two points:
1. Let's assume there's a god. Why would he create Science if it convinces so many people that he doesn't exist? Surely better to say, "Hi guys! I exist!" and then everyone would believe him.
2. I hope you've realised that you're trying to convert me to Christianity.

1. Satan can use the gifts of God just as much as we or God can. He has in the past, and he will in the future.
2. I'm explaining my beliefs, it just happens that I believe Christianity is correct, so it is the belief I will use. If I thought a different religion was correct, I'd be using that one.

Dyakovo wrote:

Asterdan wrote:
Yes, I like sauce. Honeymustard is amazing.

I accept your admission that you lied.

Hmm? You said sauce. So I thought the discussion changed to sauce.

I try to be atheist without being a dick about it. Funnily enough, one of my really, really good friends is a reactionary, Sedevaticanist arch-Catholic.

Kalosia wrote:I think it's kinda funny how pagans and polytheists back then feared the arrival of monotheist, Abrahamic religions and saw it as a threat to their beliefs.

And then nowadays there are people who just don't worship anything or anyone. The polytheists of yesterday would be horrified.

Atheists existed at the time of the rise in influence of monotheistic religions.

Mujerpotencia wrote:

New DeCapito wrote:I'm sorry, but...

Atheists take the views of science. Science works because it is based on facts that can be proven to be right.
Theists, let's say Christians, take the views of God, and the Bible. They are expected to simply believe that God exists. The Bible may appear to be evidence to God, but not every book is non-fiction.

This argument is why I cannot believe in God.

The problems with this argument are numerous, but I am going to address the principle one- that you assume that the views of science contradict the existence of a god, or that they contradict Christian theology. In fact, they confirm it. The fact that to a certain point, Science can't explain everything, that there comes a time when scientific knowledge is limited- eventually we as scientists have to look at the complexities of the natural world and ask the question, "why?" and "How?" Down to the smallest elements of matter, the electron, the proton, why do they exist? How were they created? This is where we get into theories, which are just that- theories. In a way, science is a religion as well because when it cannot explain something it poses a possible explanation.

How were they created? The Big Bang Theory. I know you're going to jump up and say it's just a theory, but does Christianity explain this any better? At least the Big Bang Theory explains our existence better than merely believing that there is a giant invisible omnipotent man in space, in that it's plausible.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally. The importance is in the underlying thread of truth- it is in a sense, a guide to how we can transcend our physical restrictions and impulses that tether us to science and address the world on a higher level of meaning, and become more one with god. God is not necessarily a man, but it is the easiest way to describe him in human terms- what he is we in our present state cannot comprehend because we are still tethered to our bodies.

It is impossible to "transcend our physical restrictions". No-one has managed it, ever. The definition of "to transcend", by the way, is literally "to be above something". Are you saying that we can get out of our physical existence?

Science, especially biomedicine, is culturally relative in many ways. Taking the ideas of science as the sacrosanct truth is actually very dangerous because it does not take into account that there are other ways of viewing a phenomenon that have an equal amount of verity

And how would you view a phenomenon in any other way? God?

Asterdan wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I accept your admission that you lied.

Hmm? You said sauce. So I thought the discussion changed to sauce.

Unless you are now just blatently trolling, sauce means giving a source for your information.

Asterdan wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

There is the middle ground of Agnostics. They literally do not know if they believe in a God or not.

No there isn't.

Dyakovo wrote:

Kalosia wrote:I think it's kinda funny how pagans and polytheists back then feared the arrival of monotheist, Abrahamic religions and saw it as a threat to their beliefs.

And then nowadays there are people who just don't worship anything or anyone. The polytheists of yesterday would be horrified.

Atheists existed at the time of the rise in influence of monotheistic religions.

They were extremely few. I'm not sure what the point is.

Dyakovo wrote:

Asterdan wrote:
There is the middle ground of Agnostics. They literally do not know if they believe in a God or not.

No there isn't.

This is incorrect, communism or fascism. They have a middle ground known as centrists. The same applies to this, please stop being short sighted.

Dyakovo wrote:

Asterdan wrote:
There is the middle ground of Agnostics. They literally do not know if they believe in a God or not.

No there isn't.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

Asterdan wrote:

New DeCapito wrote:Two points:
1. Let's assume there's a god. Why would he create Science if it convinces so many people that he doesn't exist? Surely better to say, "Hi guys! I exist!" and then everyone would believe him.
2. I hope you've realised that you're trying to convert me to Christianity.

1. Satan can use the gifts of God just as much as we or God can. He has in the past, and he will in the future.
2. I'm explaining my beliefs, it just happens that I believe Christianity is correct, so it is the belief I will use. If I thought a different religion was correct, I'd be using that one.

1. Strawman. This doesn't counter my argument. (Also, why would God create Satan?)
2. Thank you for explaining this.

Asterdan wrote:


1. I'd rather not.
2. 98% of statistics are made up on the spot
3. Everything just fits too well together. This all randomly happening just doesn't make sense. I had another thing to say, but my mind strayed and I forgot what it was...
4. How is it bleak? We look forward to living good lives, having fun, and then going on to spend eternity in an amazing land. Atheism well.... when you're done, you're done.

That statistic was a simple hyperbole that I made to illustrate my disdain for your bullshit.

Everything just fits well together? To awesome to have happened by chance?
Even if it is by chance, it doesn't matter, if you have enough of these big bangs happening, we're bound to end up with one coalescing into what ours is like. If you are into the multiverse theory, which I am. Doesn't matter, because your denial of this happening by chance doesn't mean god did it simply because it doesn't make sense to you. There are plenty of explanations out there, the best ones given by Lawrence Krauss, or Michio Kaku.

You postpone, and waste your life away waiting for an eternal paradise you're not sure is coming.
Heaven is eternal, which means that all purpose is stripped from your being there, eh eaves is a place of eternal worship of god, all the time, forever. That sounds quite terrible to me, hell is about as bad, but in a different way.
Both afterlifes suck.

Atheists more often than not are more interested in living life to the fullest because we only got ONE life, which makes it all the more precious, it's like asking which is more valuable? 1 diamond ring, or an infinite amount of diamond rings?
The rarer the more valuable. We believe we only have this one life, so better cherish every damn moment, Christians are all about the "after-party" instead of the here and now. Besides, what is the point of doing anything with your life if you ultimately end up in heaven regardless?

Dyakovo wrote:

Asterdan wrote:
There is the middle ground of Agnostics. They literally do not know if they believe in a God or not.

No there isn't.

Respectfully, I think most agnostics would resist your attempts at putting them in either one camp or the other.

Sauvage wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

Because neutrality or simply not caring are no longer options in the american culture. You are a communist or a fascist. A worker or a thinker. A enemy or a friend.

How horrible, why can't you guys act like great white north Canada where population is tightly knit enough to give a damn about the fellow man beside them regardless of if they are friend or foe.

It has nothing to do with any culture, American or otherwise.

I strongly believe in freedom of religion and support the right to believe in Atheism.

Anglo-California wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:No there isn't.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

An atheist.

Faith, regarding the actual existence of something, versus particular details of the nature of it's existence, is a pretty binary concept. Either you believe something exists or you don't.

Anglo-California wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:No there isn't.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

Since that basically is my view (I'm normally untroubled by questions of religion), I second this point. I'm not sure categorisation into two (and only two) sides is easy/possible.

Valerion wrote:

Asterdan wrote:
Hmm? You said sauce. So I thought the discussion changed to sauce.

Unless you are now just blatently trolling, sauce means giving a source for your information.

I'm not in General enough, obviously. Why not just say source? Anywho:

As I said in the original post, unless I am thinking of another post, you wouldn't believe anything I said. You'd probably just claim it was a coincidence, that it didn't happen or that I was hallucinating.

My thoughts on atheism are that it's the only sensible position to hold when you consider the complete lack of evidence to support the existence of deities, life after death or miracles.

I also think the label is an unfortunate necessity. We have as much evidence for God(s) as we do the tooth-fairy, but we don't have to waste energy in public discourse highlighting that we don't believe in dental-obsessed pixies.

Anglo-California wrote:Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

I think you'd be an ignostic.