Are you Theist or Atheist?

[Norstal]

[citation needed]

Is there any cite you would be remotely interested in?

If there was infallible proof, would you believe it?

Merchant, by saying this:

We have accomplished nothing without God's help.

You have figuratively shit on the graves of all non-Christians to have ever existed. Of course we're going to demand proof of this. Because this is highly insulting. I recognize Christianity played a great role in preserving science in Europe during the Dark Ages, but why would you try to expand this beyond Europe/West? Your god did not help Chinese poets write poetry. Your god did not helped Indian scholars study. Your god did not help the Japanese win wars. Your god did not helped the Koreans build castles. I wouldn't say Buddha had saved all those soulless, plagued, misguided Westerners and you shouldn't say such condescending words either.

If there's one thing that I want to get rid of in this world is the Christian thought that their religion is universal. Your religion is Western. And I'd like to keep it that way.

If you think Westerners are lesser than your god, that's fine. I don't care. But the rest of us? The rest of us has nothing to do with your god. I don't care if it is in your creation myth that your god created all of us. Because that's clearly false. There's no infallible proof of this without being racist and I know you better than that.

[YellowApple]

"Atheist" is much closer to my views than "theist"; while I am open to the possibility of God's existence, I've yet to find much evidence indicating such possibility to be a reality (read: no evidence whatsoever).

[The Blaatschapen]

Is there any cite you would be remotely interested in?

If there was infallible proof, would you believe it?

Merchant, by saying this:

We have accomplished nothing without God's help.

You have figuratively shit on the graves of all non-Christians to have ever existed. Of course we're going to demand proof of this. Because this is highly insulting. I recognize Christianity played a great role in preserving science in Europe during the Dark Ages, but why would you try to expand this beyond Europe/West? Your god did not help Chinese poets write poetry. Your god did not helped Indian scholars study. Your god did not help the Japanese win wars. Your god did not helped the Koreans build castles. I wouldn't say Buddha had saved all those soulless, plagued, misguided Westerners and you shouldn't say such condescending words either.

If there's one thing that I want to get rid of in this world is the Christian thought that their religion is universal. Your religion is Western. And I'd like to keep it that way.

If you think Westerners are lesser than your god, that's fine. I don't care. But the rest of us? The rest of us has nothing to do with your god. I don't care if it is in your creation myth that your god created all of us. Because that's clearly false. There's no infallible proof of this without being racist and I know you better than that.

Hey now. I as a 'Westerner' have nothing to do with his god (or your god, or whatever god) at all.

[Genivaria]

Merchant, by saying this:


You have figuratively shit on the graves of all non-Christians to have ever existed. Of course we're going to demand proof of this. Because this is highly insulting. I recognize Christianity played a great role in preserving science in Europe during the Dark Ages, but why would you try to expand this beyond Europe/West? Your god did not help Chinese poets write poetry. Your god did not helped Indian scholars study. Your god did not help the Japanese win wars. Your god did not helped the Koreans build castles. I wouldn't say Buddha had saved all those soulless, plagued, misguided Westerners and you shouldn't say such condescending words either.

If there's one thing that I want to get rid of in this world is the Christian thought that their religion is universal. Your religion is Western. And I'd like to keep it that way.

If you think Westerners are lesser than your god, that's fine. I don't care. But the rest of us? The rest of us has nothing to do with your god. I don't care if it is in your creation myth that your god created all of us. Because that's clearly false. There's no infallible proof of this without being racist and I know you better than that.

Hey now. I as a 'Westerner' have nothing to do with his god (or your god, or whatever god) at all.

I second this. Having the centuries of scientific and social achievements of the west so trivialized irks me greatly.

[Neutraligon]

I think you have to be skeptical of science and religion.

Obviously if something is proven you don't deny it because it is true. But sometimes science is wrong (think eugenics) and, contrary to popular belief, it doesn't always correct itself. In fact, you usually have to wait for a whole new generation if scientists to change the trend/consensus. "Science" isn't an integrated theory; it is just like religion and politics in the respect that there are thousands of viewpoints in flux ata time. So yeah, don't trust "science" because it is popular. See it for yourself.

Also, beware of academia and peer review. Many professors are bought off idiots that are paid to fabricate "science". My neighbor had a friend that worked for a company that wanted him to prove that the protein in their milkshakes was the best protein to use in bodybuilding. The guy found out that wasn't true at all, but when he went to publish the study they threatened to fire him and sue. No one would peer review it in the company because of the threat of job loss. Oh, and he spent 7 years on it.

As for me, I am an athiest by normal standards but I don't know enough about the world to make an educated opinion yet.

Umm eugenics isn't science precisely, but rather the application of science as an excuse to perform certain actions; it is a social philosophy. Your example that you gave, again not science, but rather business. The science was the experimentation and conclusion was the science, everything else was business.

[Luveria]

"Atheist" is much closer to my views than "theist"; while I am open to the possibility of God's existence, I've yet to find much evidence indicating such possibility to be a reality (read: no evidence whatsoever).

Every reasonable atheist is open to the possibility of a god's existence but there is simply no evidence at all to believe such superstitious things.

[Kugai]

Neither. I am a pantheist/animist and find the theist vs atheist debate to be oh-so-very-silly. It is rather like watching an extended family quarrel in the supermarket: somehow you are embarrassed for them.

[Stroznia]

Theism is the belief in at least one deity. That's it. That's the definition of theism.

You keep bandying that about. Quit being simple and at least attempt to define what "deity" means to you. What you seem to be implying here is that pantheism isn't a valid option because (you assume) it either has a deity or doesn't. I assure you —and ten seconds of research will corroborate this— that the situation is not so clear-cut. Pantheism does, in fact, have no deity, one deity, and infinite deities all at the same time, depending on your definition of deity. All Monism is like that.

Lol, no. Not all theists believe in an omniscient god.

If you understand that not all cultures have an omniscient god, then you realize just how crude and imprecise the word "deity" is, don't you? Is the titan Kirke as deserving of the title "deity" as Elohim? What about Tajimamori, the Shintoh god of candy? There is a huge difference between systems of belief that attribute the creation of reality TO a god, and those in which God or gods are merely symbolic representations of self-existing reality. Both can be said to have "deities," but the religions in which reality is self-existing have nothing to do with the anti-scientific religions that Atheists rail against.

[Frisivisia]

Theism is the belief in at least one deity. That's it. That's the definition of theism.

You keep bandying that about. Quit being simple and at least attempt to define what "deity" means to you. What you seem to be implying here is that pantheism isn't a valid option because (you assume) it either has a deity or doesn't. I assure you —and ten seconds of research will corroborate this— that the situation is not so clear-cut. Pantheism does, in fact, have no deity, one deity, and infinite deities all at the same time, depending on your definition of deity. All Monism is like that.

If you understand that not all cultures have an omniscient god, then you realize just how crude and imprecise the word "deity" is, don't you? Is the titan Kirke as deserving of the title "deity" as Elohim? What about Tajimamori, the Shintoh god of candy? There is a huge difference between systems of belief that attribute the creation of reality TO a god, and those in which God or gods are merely symbolic representations of self-existing reality. Both can be said to have "deities," but the religions in which reality is self-existing have nothing to do with the anti-scientific religions that Atheists rail against.

The more important question is: Can you prove your pantheism?

[AETEN II]

I don't believe nothing exploded into everything. Something had to cause the big bang.

The thing that really ticks me off about this argument and probably made me decide I was Atheist all those years ago.

If a god caused the Big Bang then that's implication that God existed before the Big Bang to create Matter. The thing that contradicts this is that, at the end of the day, something had to cause God as well whether it be another god or natural causes there would still be the matter of working out their creation as well.

It seems so much more logical that in the Singularity, pressure caused an explosion of whatever 'gas' was in the Singularity. (Singularity implying a small point of matter in a probable empty area in a Multiverse (At least, this is the theory I follow) that implies some substance had to fill this area.)

Yeah, but the multiverse theory states in effect that the multiverse has always existed, and never will cease to exist, thus the multiverse is as skeptical of an omnipotent form of life. Which is why, as awesome as the multiverse would be, I have my doubts. I find it difficult to conceive that there is no infinite space outside our universe and thus want to fully accept the multiverse theory, it's just that it's, strange.

[Twilliamson]

I don't believe nothing exploded into everything. Something had to cause the big bang.

i guess you mean that God has to have exist to cause the big bang. Two problems with your logical. First i am no scientist but i am preety sure the big bang wasn't simply nothing explosing into everything, 2 If God had to have caused the big bang what created god.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

I don't believe nothing exploded into everything. Something had to cause the big bang.

String theory. Check it.

[Luveria]

I don't believe nothing exploded into everything. Something had to cause the big bang.

i guess you mean that God has to have exist to cause the big bang. Two problems with your logical. First i am no scientist but i am preety sure the big bang wasn't simply nothing explosing into everything, 2 If God had to have caused the big bang what created god.

God fathered himself just like Jesus did.

[Mavorpen]

I don't believe nothing exploded into everything. Something had to cause the big bang.

String theory. Check it.

Actually String Theory states that something DID exist before the Big Bang occurred.

If your point was that Sea Territory is wrong to state that something cannot come from nothing, you're right.

[Seperates]

Hooray for just substituting words without proving anything!

Pantheism means "all is God" or as I like to put it, "God is our name for life, the universe and everything."
It's a belief that the natural world is the one and only source of "divine" inspiration.

It's like atheism in that it posits that there is nothing beyond the natural/material universe, and that reality is all there is.
But it leaves a place for the trappings of religion, I.E. worship, reverence, faith in a higher order, etc.

It's hardly a "substitute" for anything.

Then why not just say 'the universe'? Because if everything is God then God is nothing.

[Mavorpen]

Then why not just say 'the universe'? Because if everything is God then God is nothing.

Because that's too mainstream.

[Seperates]

Theism is the belief in at least one deity. That's it. That's the definition of theism.

You keep bandying that about. Quit being simple and at least attempt to define what "deity" means to you. What you seem to be implying here is that pantheism isn't a valid option because (you assume) it either has a deity or doesn't. I assure you —and ten seconds of research will corroborate this— that the situation is not so clear-cut. Pantheism does, in fact, have no deity, one deity, and infinite deities all at the same time, depending on your definition of deity. All Monism is like that.

Lol, no. Not all theists believe in an omniscient god.

If you understand that not all cultures have an omniscient god, then you realize just how crude and imprecise the word "deity" is, don't you? Is the titan Kirke as deserving of the title "deity" as Elohim? What about Tajimamori, the Shintoh god of candy? There is a huge difference between systems of belief that attribute the creation of reality TO a god, and those in which God or gods are merely symbolic representations of self-existing reality. Both can be said to have "deities," but the religions in which reality is self-existing have nothing to do with the anti-scientific religions that Atheists rail against.

But then, why should I care? If all they are are anthropormorphic personifications of objects, then what exactly are you asking me to believe?

[The Utopian Empire of Gary MF Oak]

I believe in "Awesomeness Personified". Me.

[Genivaria]

i guess you mean that God has to have exist to cause the big bang. Two problems with your logical. First i am no scientist but i am preety sure the big bang wasn't simply nothing explosing into everything, 2 If God had to have caused the big bang what created god.

God fathered himself just like Jesus did.

You do realize that's logically impossible right?
I just had a mental image of Bugs Bunny's arm appearing from nowhere and pulling himself into existence.

[Luveria]

God fathered himself just like Jesus did.

You do realize that's logically impossible right?
I just had a mental image of Bugs Bunny's arm appearing from nowhere and pulling himself into existence.

I realize it's logically impossible but I'm not sure the theists do.

[Menassa]

i guess you mean that God has to have exist to cause the big bang. Two problems with your logical. First i am no scientist but i am preety sure the big bang wasn't simply nothing explosing into everything, 2 If God had to have caused the big bang what created god.

God fathered himself just like Jesus did.

Not sure of serious, or sarcastic.

[Menassa]

You do realize that's logically impossible right?
I just had a mental image of Bugs Bunny's arm appearing from nowhere and pulling himself into existence.

I realize it's logically impossible but I'm not sure the theists do.

Theists =/= Christians.

[The Inhumane]

The OP and I are one in the same.

[Genivaria]

The OP and I are one in the same.

Your the same person?

[The Inhumane]

The OP and I are one in the same.

Your the same person?

Hah.
No, obviously I'm just as confused on the topic as he appears to be. Minus the science jizz.