Atheism? Yay or Nay.

[Sociobiology]

This is where I get lost

Let's try to find a way out together, shall we? o.o

I promise not to mention Gallup polls again.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I'm saying that a square is however you define it but I'm playing nice so I say yes a square with three lines (God) can exist if you add a line (humans).
I am getting tired of this.I said don't put God into this.We are talking about PLAIN SQUARES ! What's so hard to understand ? Can a normal square have 3 sides or not ? No God in this

1 God gave me reason (let's suppose I'm not retarded)
2 I have used my reason to deduce he exists (If you want, I can go in lengths about it later)
3 God is proud of me
Logic huh?

I made that scenario to explain why sending a non believer to hell is plain evil
Now for a real question
If God is omniscient and knows the future
and omnipotent
can he change the future ?
Just like 3 sided squares that's ilogical therefore imposible

Lol I got lost in the Euler fantasy that is made out of three-sided squares and two-sided triangles. How does this tie in with God??

And sometimes, it's good to show theists that they are illogical to believe in entities that have effectively zero probability of existing, but when they insist that they willingly accept that they wish to be illogical, I think it's plain to see that we should stop arguing because arguments based in logic don't work on illogical minds. I'm sorry I don't know how to word this better, but I respect theists and certainly, certainly mean no offense.

There are points in every argument that mark the argument as going nowhere because one or more parties choose to be illogical and so logical arguments can't get through to them. But before that point, at least it's good to point out the lack of logic and reason in their beliefs, and to open their minds to show them what they are getting into.

[Gorgisia]

I'm saying that a square is however you define it but I'm playing nice so I say yes a square with three lines (God) can exist if you add a line (humans).
I am getting tired of this.I said don't put God into this.We are talking about PLAIN SQUARES ! What's so hard to understand ? Can a normal square have 3 sides or not ? No God in this

I made that scenario to explain why sending a non believer to hell is plain evil
Now for a real question
If God is omniscient and knows the future
and omnipotent
can he change the future ?
Just like 3 sided squares that's ilogical therefore imposible

Lol I got lost in the Euler fantasy that is made out of three-sided squares and two-sided triangles. How does this tie in with God??

And sometimes, it's good to show theists that they are illogical to believe in entities that have effectively zero probability of existing, but when they insist that they willingly accept that they wish to be illogical, I think it's plain to see that we should stop arguing because arguments based in logic don't work on illogical minds. I'm sorry I don't know how to word this better, but I respect theists and certainly, certainly mean no offense.

There are points in every argument that mark the argument as going nowhere because one or more parties choose to be illogical and so logical arguments can't get through to them. But before that point, at least it's good to point out the lack of logic and reason in their beliefs, and to open their minds to show them what they are getting into.

Well, what's so logical about electric current? What's logical about waves? What's logical about us all existing in the first place?

By the way, I am an agnostic semi-atheist.

[Sociobiology]

Lol I got lost in the Euler fantasy that is made out of three-sided squares and two-sided triangles. How does this tie in with God??

And sometimes, it's good to show theists that they are illogical to believe in entities that have effectively zero probability of existing, but when they insist that they willingly accept that they wish to be illogical, I think it's plain to see that we should stop arguing because arguments based in logic don't work on illogical minds. I'm sorry I don't know how to word this better, but I respect theists and certainly, certainly mean no offense.

There are points in every argument that mark the argument as going nowhere because one or more parties choose to be illogical and so logical arguments can't get through to them. But before that point, at least it's good to point out the lack of logic and reason in their beliefs, and to open their minds to show them what they are getting into.

Well, what's so logical about electric current? What's logical about waves? What's logical about us all existing in the first place?

By the way, I am an agnostic semi-atheist.

electrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_model
waves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

just because you don't understand the logic does not mean it has not been worked out.

[Gorgisia]

Yeah. And now explain why RNA exists. And then why the reason exists that is exists... you catch my drift.

[Romania Mare1]

There's a diffrence .Just wait for him to explain how an omniscient and omnipotent God can change the future

[Furious Grandmothers]

Yeah. And now explain why RNA exists. And then why the reason exists that is exists... you catch my drift.

Science doesn't care why something exists. It only cares what exists and the circumstances surrounding it. Trying to figure out the why would be overstepping what we can do, and so we don't attempt to do things like that, or other things such as claim to know for sure whether there was something or nothing before the Big Bang. Sure, we can postulate, but some things are not within the ability of humans to understand and it would be an inappropriate and unwarranted presumption to go there.

[Sociobiology]

Yeah. And now explain why RNA exists. And then why the reason exists that is exists... you catch my drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
If I explain 99% of everything observed, jumping to the conclusion that that last 1% will never be explained or that it is explained by the 1% fairy is just fallacious and ridiculous.

[French Union]

To be honest, I am atheist in the way that I do not believe in a deity that created the universe and created mankind. I do however, have faith in people and humanity, that we're all good and moral and that we'll one day create a Utopian society where everyone live peace and harmony. Yes, I may sound idealistic but I believe we as human beings are capable of doing anything.

I think there is no need for god, we can live morally and ethically without the teachings of a religion telling us what god wants us to do and for the matter of an afterlife (or not), I think that we shouldn't be afraid of dying, embrace it, whether we believe in an afterlife or not, it is a privilege to exist at all.

I am not afraid of death.

You must be taken advantage a lot.

Anyway I'm an atheist and morals and ethics can be damned, you want to limit yourself than so be it.

[DaWoad]

Lol I got lost in the Euler fantasy that is made out of three-sided squares and two-sided triangles. How does this tie in with God??

And sometimes, it's good to show theists that they are illogical to believe in entities that have effectively zero probability of existing, but when they insist that they willingly accept that they wish to be illogical, I think it's plain to see that we should stop arguing because arguments based in logic don't work on illogical minds. I'm sorry I don't know how to word this better, but I respect theists and certainly, certainly mean no offense.

There are points in every argument that mark the argument as going nowhere because one or more parties choose to be illogical and so logical arguments can't get through to them. But before that point, at least it's good to point out the lack of logic and reason in their beliefs, and to open their minds to show them what they are getting into.

Well, what's so logical about electric current? What's logical about waves? What's logical about us all existing in the first place?

By the way, I am an agnostic semi-atheist.

current and waves follow know existing pyshical laws that we describe via physics. Us existing follows normal physical laws that we describe via biology. Alll completely logical.

[DaWoad]

Yeah. And now explain why RNA exists. And then why the reason exists that is exists... you catch my drift.

Science doesn't care why something exists.

not true, the supercolliders exist primarily to determin exactly why certain things (like . .. say. . .mass) exist.

It only cares what exists and the circumstances surrounding it.

definitely "cares" about that too.

[ Trying to figure out the why would be overstepping what we can do,

nope, see: supercolliders also quantum physics.

and so we don't attempt to do things like that,

sure we do

or other things such as claim to know for sure whether there was something or nothing before the Big Bang.

ah, on htis point you're right though people put forward theories and then attempt to test them until they can know for some value of sure.

Sure, we can postulate,

can, do and should especially if we can follow up with tests.

but some things are not within the ability of humans to understand

I disagree. There is nothing in the physical universe we can't understand. There are things we currently don't, sure and there are things that we may never be able to predict but understand? definitely.

and it would be an inappropriate and unwarranted presumption to go there.

presumption against what or whom and why would it be unwarranted?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Obviously a man who knows his science well!

Science doesn't care why something exists.

not true, the supercolliders exist primarily to determin exactly why certain things (like . .. say. . .mass) exist.

Oops, should have specified. The 'why' I was referring to is the why of reason, as if it was intended to exist. The 'why' you are referring to seems to be a different 'why', which is that of cause. Both 'why's are explanations but both are different.

It only cares what exists and the circumstances surrounding it.

definitely "cares" about that too.

[ Trying to figure out the why would be overstepping what we can do,

nope, see: supercolliders also quantum physics.

and so we don't attempt to do things like that,

sure we do

or other things such as claim to know for sure whether there was something or nothing before the Big Bang.

ah, on htis point you're right though people put forward theories and then attempt to test them until they can know for some value of sure.

Sure, we can postulate,

can, do and should especially if we can follow up with tests.

but some things are not within the ability of humans to understand

I disagree. There is nothing in the physical universe we can't understand. There are things we currently don't, sure and there are things that we may never be able to predict but understand? definitely.

Ah, I was referring to things outside the realm of the physics, absurd things like are we just brains in a vat, does reality as we know it exists, things we will never be able to know because we are bounded by the limits of our own perceptions (already taking into account the extent to which technological tools can aid us)

and it would be an inappropriate and unwarranted presumption to go there.

presumption against what or whom and why would it be unwarranted?

Actually, I remembered that I actually meant something else for the last two points I said, but I've now forgotten. It may have been, if you are theist, figuring out what God thinks, which doesn't make sense, or something, I don't think it was that. Oh, what the hey. Anyhow, the brain in the vat still serves fine as an example of absurd things we can never know.

[Bergnovinaia]

Even though I am a theist (specifically a non-denominational, non-hating Christian) I feel that this arguement is somewhat pointless because theists aren't going to convince ahtiests or agnostics that they are wrong or vice versa... Technically, their is no hardcore proof of either because it's either based on faith or the lack thereof.

[Valdanis]

Regarding the last few exchanges in this thread: -

Just for the record, the whole "explain x, okay explain what made x, okay then explain what made that which made x" crap makes me want to punch a kitten. Sure, science hasn't yet explained anything, but at least science works.

[Avenio]

Technically, their is no hardcore proof of either because it's either based on faith or the lack thereof.

Eh. This is true, in a roundabout way; science and empiricism cannot disprove the complete notion of God or gods, at least not with our current understanding of the universe. But, and this is an important point, it can grossly undermine the actions God is supposed to be able to do or, according to religious dogma, has done in the past; we know for a fact, for example, that God did not create the world in six days seven thousand years ago. We know that the Great Flood described in the Bible (And other Middle Eastern religions) never happened, and the story of Noah never happened. We know that the type of interventionism described in stories like the Bible and Greek mythology could never happen. Science and empiricism has whittled away the dominion of the supernatural and deities to such a degree that, if you were to choose to believe the scientific evidence, the only way God (Or gods) could exist would be either to have intervened in the extremely early universe and never again, or to be an anthropomorphization of the laws of physics. Needless to say, neither are very appealing to most people.

[DaWoad]

:) Obviously a man who knows his science well!

not true, the supercolliders exist primarily to determin exactly why certain things (like . .. say. . .mass) exist.

Oops, should have specified. The 'why' I was referring to is the why of reason, as if it was intended to exist. The 'why' you are referring to seems to be a different 'why', which is that of cause. Both 'why's are explanations but both are different.

ah, right sorry I think I misunderstood. my apologize.

definitely "cares" about that too.

nope, see: supercolliders also quantum physics.

sure we do

ah, on htis point you're right though people put forward theories and then attempt to test them until they can know for some value of sure.

can, do and should especially if we can follow up with tests.

I disagree. There is nothing in the physical universe we can't understand. There are things we currently don't, sure and there are things that we may never be able to predict but understand? definitely.

Ah, I was referring to things outside the realm of the physics, absurd things like are we just brains in a vat, does reality as we know it exists, things we will never be able to know because we are bounded by the limits of our own perceptions (already taking into account the extent to which technological tools can aid us)

ohhhh k yes, in that regard you are entirely correct. That said, I find the "we might all be brains in jars" argument kinda a pointless one. I mean it could well be true but we still have to act as if it's not which makes the whole thing a little irrelevant (and what was that movie. .. the one that ended with the guy actually just being a dreaming head in a jar?)

presumption against what or whom and why would it be unwarranted?

Actually, I remembered that I actually meant something else for the last two points I said, but I've now forgotten. It may have been, if you are theist, figuring out what God thinks, which doesn't make sense, or something, I don't think it was that. Oh, what the hey. Anyhow, the brain in the vat still serves fine as an example of absurd things we can never know.

agreed!

[Bergnovinaia]

Yeah... I don't argue much on the subject because either way, it winds up being a pointless thing because nobody will budge.

We know that the Great Flood described in the Bible (And other Middle Eastern religions) never happened, and the story of Noah never happened.

Actually, from a historical and anthropological perspective, that claim is wrong as almost every single civlization and society that emerged from Mesopotamia or a similar area all have records (either spirtual or not) of a great flooding of some sort... of course, it may have been, in a real sense, not as large as holy texts play it to be. However, considering that not much of the world had great communcication skills circa de 4000 B.C.E. so it is possible that there was some incredibly severe flooding (like a water breach or something) that covered a vast area... seemingly as large as the world as the writer knew it.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Regarding the last few exchanges in this thread: -

Just for the record, the whole "explain x, okay explain what made x, okay then explain what made that which made x" crap makes me want to punch a kitten. Sure, science hasn't yet explained anything, but at least science works.

Depending on your definition of the word "explanation", science may well have explained some stuff.

At least science is reliable and predicts well. Religion, though, does not help us with understanding the phenomena of today or of the future, but instead is rooted in the past, even as it is revised over centuries. I still don't get why some people openly admit that they accept that they are being illogical, and choose faith over logic. If you have seen my posts objecting against alcohol, I hate being deluded and not perceiving as much of reality as I can (source of delusion can be alcohol, drugs or religion), so I don't understand why people want to escape reality. Perhaps a theist can help me understand this? Alcoholics have already tried to convince me, but really, I subjectively taste alcohol to have a horrible taste, and losing your inhibitions is not fun if you lose touch with reality.

NOTE: Alcohol is just a sidenote, don't OOT the thread by focusing on it.

[Freelanderness]

True theists do the very same. We just have someone to thank for it all.

Most theists don't. Most theists, and a good number of atheists, condemn human nature, condemn greed and not altruism, condemn ambition but not humility. You condemn fully half of the things that make us human.

hehe. Source?

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

And then the deficit grounds you again

[DaWoad]

Even though I am a theist (specifically a non-denominational, non-hating Christian) I feel that this arguement is somewhat pointless because theists aren't going to convince ahtiests or agnostics that they are wrong or vice versa... Technically, their is no hardcore proof of either because it's either based on faith or the lack thereof.

no, faith is a belief thing, it is only ever required when one's beliefs run contrary to the evidence. The fact that god hasn't presented himself, that prayer has never worked in studies, that no miracle has yet been scientifically verified that almost every physical claim religion puts forth is false in part or whole and that much of the bible is provably incorrect in part or whole suggest that god either
a) doesn't exist
or b) does exist but has never had anything to do with humans.
there is some evidence as well as some logical issues against the idea of god what there isn't, and will never be, is a definitive proof that god doesn't exist if for no other reason than every time someone provides one, god changes just enough to escape that definition.
(ie. at one point god lived on a mountain, then in the sky, then in space and now is some quasi-magical heaven that doesn't exist in our universe. He/she/it changed every time someone went "I've been up that mountain, no one's there" or "I checked out those clouds, they're just water vapor" or "we've been to space! ooops, no gods here either)

[Furious Grandmothers]

Yeah... I don't argue much on the subject because either way, it winds up being a pointless thing because nobody will budge.

Well, breaking news, I am a case study of someone who has budged due to good arguments by others on NSG, in my case from agnostic theism to ignosticism. So it may well work on others. If someone shows me the folly of my ways and convinces me that theism is more logically reasonable than ignosticism, I would convert too. That is, if.

[DaWoad]

Yeah... I don't argue much on the subject because either way, it winds up being a pointless thing because nobody will budge.

We know that the Great Flood described in the Bible (And other Middle Eastern religions) never happened, and the story of Noah never happened.

Actually, from a historical and anthropological perspective, that claim is wrong as almost every single civlization and society that emerged from Mesopotamia or a similar area all have records (either spirtual or not) of a great flooding of some sort... of course, it may have been, in a real sense, not as large as holy texts play it to be. However, considering that not much of the world had great communcication skills circa de 4000 B.C.E. so it is possible that there was some incredibly severe flooding (like a water breach or something) that covered a vast area... seemingly as large as the world as the writer knew it.

which would be valid if the writer was meant to be just another person. The writer, though, is meant to be someone who was holy enough to talk to god and was meant to be the only person left after god "cleansed the world". There may have been a flood, sure, there almost certainly was at least once but it in no way matches the biblical account.

[Avenio]

Yeah... I don't argue much on the subject because either way, it winds up being a pointless thing because nobody will budge.

You'd be surprised. At least on NSG, we've had a few successful de-conversions from one religion or another. Perhaps a religious conversion or two, but I haven't heard of any.

Actually, from a historical and anthropological perspective, that claim is wrong as almost every single civlization and society that emerged from Mesopotamia or a similar area all have records (either spirtual or not) of a great flooding of some sort...

Yes indeed. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that the writers of the Bible (The Old Testament in particular) may have 'adapted' the older Sumerian and Mesopotamian myths. In any case, Mesopotamia is a large, flat floodplain; it isn't out of the question that a particularly large flood might be remembered in mythology to that degree. But it was by no means world-spanning as the Old Testament claims.

of course, it may have been, in a real sense, not as large as holy texts play it to be. However, considering that not much of the world had great communcication skills circa de 4000 B.C.E. so it is possible that there was some incredibly severe flooding (like a water breach or something) that covered a vast area... seemingly as large as the world as the writer knew it.

Indeed. But that kind of disproves the entire myth of Noah, doesn't it? No world-spanning flood, no repopulation of the animals, no planet-wide flooding. It is, again, another case of the dominion of the supernatural being beaten back into the corner.

[Valdanis]

Regarding the last few exchanges in this thread: -

Just for the record, the whole "explain x, okay explain what made x, okay then explain what made that which made x" crap makes me want to punch a kitten. Sure, science hasn't yet explained anything, but at least science works.

Depending on your definition of the word "explanation", science may well have explained some stuff. (Snipped for space, but I did read the rest.)

I know, but eventually the line of questioning they put to you will run you in to a wall on the edge of human knowledge. It's the intellectual dishonesty that really winds me up, because it almost outright makes the presumption that their awful, unfalsifiable "hypothesis" is better than no hypothesis at all.

[Vorond]

Is it just me, or does this thread have a cathartic notion? Whenever I feel like punching a creationist I read a bit here and see them being delivered the argumental equivalent of driving a tank over their car. It's refreshing!