Do you belive in God?

[Farnhamia]

I classify the RCC as a International Criminal Organization.

I wouldn't go that far, personally, but their posistion is abused.

How?

[Genivaria]

I classify the RCC as a International Criminal Organization.

I wouldn't go that far, personally, but their posistion is abused.

I consider the Mafia to be more ethical.

[Norstal]

What logical arguments are these?

Im not sure what you are asking here- are you asking what logical arguments persuaded me, or are you saying that what I said above is illogical?

You said that you got convinced by logical arguments. I want to hear these arguments.

[Norstal]

And of all the gods out there from Native American tradition, Viking mythology, Greek mythology, Hinduism, etc., you coincidentally and luckily asked the right god out of the millions of possible gods to ask? My point is, even if you had asked any other gods, or had never asked at all, what will happen happens anyway and you will receive all the same.

I would say that the first human conception of god(s) (whenever it was) through the most recent religious tradition today are all imperfect attempts at communing with the same higher power. So to answer your question, I wouldn't say I happened to ask the "right" one, but rather the same deity that all mankind has been attempting to reach through history.

That's a pretty arrogant deity you're worshiping. "Don't call us we'll call you". Seems like that deity doesn't try to communicate with us at all. Almost like...there's no deity.

Your last sentence cant be proved true or untrue. If something happens, you cannot prove that it would have happened regardless of any human or divine action that was taken, or because of it. Its a matter of opinion.

Which is why your belief in god is false. If I can't reproduce it, it didn't exist.

[Zyzyzia]

The 4 given choices were way too restricting. What's more, the 4 choices were all finite, meaning in order to choose one of those meant saying you know everything that ever took place throughout Eternity. Yet fewer than half the people said "other".
Devout follower of God? Very few theists claim this.
Atheist? Not Agnostic,but genuine atheist? Saying you know there is no God? Even more absurd than the first choice.
The other two are,of course, for people making fun.
Either people are voting twice, or the rational people aren't voting, or more than half the people in the forum really think they know all the answers.
By definition, anything other than "other" would make a person the pinnacle of self righteousness, be that good or bad. It is what it is.
Lame poll. I've worked in market research, so it isn't surprising that there's an agenda in this survey. All surveys are bought and paid for. I would have liked for the poll poster to at least attempt to seem rational, but that failed.

[Four-sided Triangles]

The 4 given choices were way too restricting. What's more, the 4 choices were all finite, meaning in order to choose one of those meant saying you know everything that ever took place throughout Eternity. Yet fewer than half the people said "other".
Devout follower of God? Very few theists claim this.
Atheist? Not Agnostic,but genuine atheist? Saying you know there is no God? Even more absurd than the first choice.
The other two are,of course, for people making fun.
Either people are voting twice, or the rational people aren't voting, or more than half the people in the forum really think they know all the answers.
By definition, anything other than "other" would make a person the pinnacle of self righteousness, be that good or bad. It is what it is.
Lame poll. I've worked in market research, so it isn't surprising that there's an agenda in this survey. All surveys are bought and paid for. I would have liked for the poll poster to at least attempt to seem rational, but that failed.

You, like many people during god debates, are being overly pedantic with the definition of "atheism." Nobody outside of a moment of frustration in a heated argument claims to be absolutely certain that god does not exist. However, one can be confident enough in the non-existence of god that they can assert "There is no god." to the same degree that they can assert "I have hands." I mean sure, maybe I'm just a brain in a vat, and this is all a virtual matrix, meaning that my hands aren't real. However, that's so ridiculous, it's not really worth considering. People who call themselves "strong" atheists feel the same way about god.

[IrishPunk]

The 4 given choices were way too restricting. What's more, the 4 choices were all finite, meaning in order to choose one of those meant saying you know everything that ever took place throughout Eternity. Yet fewer than half the people said "other".
Devout follower of God? Very few theists claim this.
Atheist? Not Agnostic,but genuine atheist? Saying you know there is no God? Even more absurd than the first choice.
The other two are,of course, for people making fun.
Either people are voting twice, or the rational people aren't voting, or more than half the people in the forum really think they know all the answers.
By definition, anything other than "other" would make a person the pinnacle of self righteousness, be that good or bad. It is what it is.
Lame poll. I've worked in market research, so it isn't surprising that there's an agenda in this survey. All surveys are bought and paid for. I would have liked for the poll poster to at least attempt to seem rational, but that failed.

I haven't heard many atheists that actually claim to know that there is no god. I don't believe that there's a god, but I admit that there is a possibility that there is one.

[Norstal]

Atheist? Not Agnostic,but genuine atheist? Saying you know there is no God? Even more absurd than the first choice.

If you call people who don't worship god agnostic, then you would be wrong because there are agnostic Christian, agnostic deists, agnostic theists, etc.

So, atheism is the word to describe someone who don't worship a god. Who's apathetic in worshiping anything.

You think you're so smart don't you?

[Farnhamia]

The 4 given choices were way too restricting. What's more, the 4 choices were all finite, meaning in order to choose one of those meant saying you know everything that ever took place throughout Eternity. Yet fewer than half the people said "other".
Devout follower of God? Very few theists claim this.
Atheist? Not Agnostic,but genuine atheist? Saying you know there is no God? Even more absurd than the first choice.
The other two are,of course, for people making fun.
Either people are voting twice, or the rational people aren't voting, or more than half the people in the forum really think they know all the answers.
By definition, anything other than "other" would make a person the pinnacle of self righteousness, be that good or bad. It is what it is.
Lame poll. I've worked in market research, so it isn't surprising that there's an agenda in this survey. All surveys are bought and paid for. I would have liked for the poll poster to at least attempt to seem rational, but that failed.

I haven't heard many atheists that actually claim to know that there is no god. I don't believe that there's a god, but I admit that there is a possibility that there is one.

I'll say it: I know there is no god. I'll reconsider if and when someone shows me concrete evidence that there is one. And that does not mean "Ooooh, you can't explain this! God exists!"

[New Heliopolis]

And that does not mean "Ooooh, you can't explain this! God exists!"

Which of course, you're doing the same thing as, only for the other side.

[Farnhamia]

And that does not mean "Ooooh, you can't explain this! God exists!"

Which of course, you're doing the same thing as, only for the other side.

Not really. I'm saying I want concrete evidence whose only explanation is a deity operating from outside space-time. I don't want "This can't be explained so the only conclusion is that God did it." That's wrong because the other explanation, the more likely one is, we just can't explain it.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Which of course, you're doing the same thing as, only for the other side.

Bullshit. Scientists, many of whom are atheists, go out of their way to come up with testable explanations for the world around them. They then test these explanations to see how well they work. That is almost the exact opposite of "I can't imagine how it could possibly be any other way, ergo god."

[New Heliopolis]

Bullshit. Scientists, many of whom are atheists, go out of their way to come up with testable explanations for the world around them. They then test these explanations to see how well they work. That is almost the exact opposite of "I can't imagine how it could possibly be any other way, ergo god."

"I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so obviously, mine must be right!"

[Norvenia]

So, just to clarify, a question for any atheists arguing that the lack of evidence for God is the cause of their unbelief: do you not believe in anything that cannot be empirically proven to be true (or at least very likely)?

[New Heliopolis]

Which of course, you're doing the same thing as, only for the other side.

Not really. I'm saying I want concrete evidence whose only explanation is a deity operating from outside space-time. I don't want "This can't be explained so the only conclusion is that God did it." That's wrong because the other explanation, the more likely one is, we just can't explain it.

But that leaves the possibility of a god.

To say you know it to be impossible is the same thing as to say you know it to be true.

[Farnhamia]

Bullshit. Scientists, many of whom are atheists, go out of their way to come up with testable explanations for the world around them. They then test these explanations to see how well they work. That is almost the exact opposite of "I can't imagine how it could possibly be any other way, ergo god."

"I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so obviously, mine must be right!"

I can imagine it perfectly: someone brings me the kind of evidence I specified.

[New Heliopolis]

"I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so obviously, mine must be right!"

I can imagine it perfectly: someone brings me the kind of evidence I specified.

Okay, when someone provides me evidence that a different explanation from a god is the case, I'll change my mind.

[Farnhamia]

So, just to clarify, a question for any atheists arguing that the lack of evidence for God is the cause of their unbelief: do you not believe in anything that cannot be empirically proven to be true (or at least very likely)?

Pretty much not, but I don't usually concern myself with the question except here. I'll accept mathematical proofs. What I won't accept is the supernatural.

[Bottle]

Bullshit. Scientists, many of whom are atheists, go out of their way to come up with testable explanations for the world around them. They then test these explanations to see how well they work. That is almost the exact opposite of "I can't imagine how it could possibly be any other way, ergo god."

"I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so obviously, mine must be right!"

Except the accurate sentence is "I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS?"

Scientists actively SEEK OUT people to give us better ideas and to challenge our beliefs. That's what science IS. That's how scientists hang out. That's how we bond, but challenging each others' hypotheses. The thing is, saying "My idea is that God did it" doesn't fly, any more than saying "My idea is that leprechauns did it." We want actual ideas, not some stuff you pulled out of the ass of a bronze age nomad.

Kindly don't assume that everyone is as cowardly and unimaginative as the typical creo-theist. Most of us aren't.

[Farnhamia]

I can imagine it perfectly: someone brings me the kind of evidence I specified.

Okay, when someone provides me evidence that a different explanation from a god is the case, I'll change my mind.

It's difficult to post all of science on this forum, but that is the explanation.

[Norvenia]

So, just to clarify, a question for any atheists arguing that the lack of evidence for God is the cause of their unbelief: do you not believe in anything that cannot be empirically proven to be true (or at least very likely)?

Pretty much not, but I don't usually concern myself with the question except here. I'll accept mathematical proofs. What I won't accept is the supernatural.

Why not?

[Xenohumanity]

I'll say it: I know there is no god. I'll reconsider if and when someone shows me concrete evidence that there is one. And that does not mean "Ooooh, you can't explain this! God exists!"

The phrasing of this question makes it out that you are hostile to theistic religion as a concept (which I seriously hope isn't the case). Is this true?
What of monistic idealism or pantheistic faiths? Are they to be destroyed as non-rational pursuits as well?

[Bottle]

Pretty much not, but I don't usually concern myself with the question except here. I'll accept mathematical proofs. What I won't accept is the supernatural.

Why not?

Can't speak for Farn, but I won't accept supernatural "explanations" because they are useless. They provide me with no useful information, no testable hypotheses, no means of advancing my understanding of the universe, and no means of solving problems. They are unverifiable by definition, and therefore meaningless and useless to me.

[New Heliopolis]

Except the accurate sentence is "I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS?"

Really? Is that why theorists have pretty much divided into camps?

Scientists actively SEEK OUT people to give us better ideas and to challenge our beliefs. That's what science IS.

Science=/=scientists

That's how scientists hang out. That's how we bond, but challenging each others' hypotheses.

And then, if we look at the more prominent scientists, continuing to push one's own anyway.

Kindly don't assume that everyone is as cowardly and unimaginative as the typical creo-theist. Most of us aren't.

Meh. I've seen little evidence of that. I've seen much more against.

[Farnhamia]

Pretty much not, but I don't usually concern myself with the question except here. I'll accept mathematical proofs. What I won't accept is the supernatural.

Why not?

Because explanations of the supernatural always come down to "and then a [miracle/ectoplasmic conjunction/some other thing] happened." When you ask, "Yeah, but how did that cause this to happen?" you get increasingly vague answers, ending with, "It's outside the realm of our puny human brains." And that's not an explanation. God goes into the same category as unicorns, fairies, ghost, demons and a whole host of others: amusing but not real.

And what Bottle said.