Convince me, please.

[Cronin]

Hi Folks.

Let's assume for the purpose of this thread that I am undecided as to whether I am a theist, an agnostic or an atheist.

Without attacking opposing points of view, please present the pros and cons of your individual belief system to me in a way that might help me decide which road to take in life. Please don't worry about the length or complexity of your response(s).

I will probably ask many questions - but only for the purpose of gaining knowledge and, hopefully, understanding.

Thanks!

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Ignorance is seldom the best solution of a problem.

The Problem: The origin(s) of the universe(s).

In this case, ignorance is what we humans know of the entire universe, its origins, etc.

I was raised Catholic, turn atheist, then agnostic, and now a non-denominational theist. I believe religion is a bunch of crap, not all of it. I don't overlook what good principles it teaches, I follow them but I reject the silly human interpretations.

Now God will serve to you as a last link always. I believe in science fully, so I am not logically handicapped. If you try to apply Occum's Razor on God, it's irrelevant, we are ignorant and we aren't sure if God is really superfluous or not.

A list of points:

• Atheism contains some negativism.
• Visions, sightings, etc. of ghosts, spirits, possessions - you really think they are all just utter bullshit? Take that chance?
• Nothing is wrong with having some faith, just as long as you don't use it to answer everything.
• Supernatural, multiple dimensions - rule all that out?
• Put everything on human logic? Which has its flaws?
• Theories say the origins of the universe came through spontaneous creation. So some are basically saying "spontaneity" is their creator. I rather have God through spontaneity be my creator. Again, are you restricted logically here? No, you are embracing science every bit.
• A belief in spiritual states, where anger, frustration, stress, etc. etc. are gone. Most spiritual people are kind, loving, caring, etc. It's good to listen to spiritual people.
• Hope, other than the pessimistic idea of "live and then you die." But irresponsibility cannot be tolerated.
• Perspective - it all depends on that. I believe God put all of us here to live, learn, love, and enjoy the earth and all of God's creation through science, not the "magical poofing" method.
• As a theist, you reject other silly theistic claims, some atheists base their doctrine SOLELY on these silly theistic claims that THEISTS THEMSELVES already have rejected.
• You are kind and fair towards religions, realizing it's good and bad. Not slandering in religion's name.
• You realize logically, that "creationism" has no scientific support, you realize, religion was made by humans so it's doomed to be flawed, same goes for the Bible.
• You realize religions are human interpretations of God for the purpose of winning power, control, converts, etc. But it is not ALL evil, but rather there is goodness, some overlook the goodness, you don't as a theist that understands.
• Believe in individual responsibility (Thinking God baby us humans is irresponsible), take advantage of the human belief system to propell you to work harder and reach whatever you desire.
• You're still a free-thinker.

There are alot more, but I'm not thinking fully right now. Basically it boils down to this, you lost nothing to believe in a creator, God. If God is true and you didn't believe in God, you could possible risk being separated from God.

Giving credit to spontaneity, rather God, is insulting don't you think? It's like saying, "Daddy, you weren't the reason I was born, the random and luck of the sperms bought me into existence." Credit is given to spontaneity, but sole and ultimate credit belongs to God. But we don't know this, the case of spontaneity or God, but what would you take your chances on?

The best defense on what I proposed is: "God is irrelevant in this universe, there is no empirical proof of God"

Again, sure there is no empirical proof, but what did you really lose believing this way? If they state you are "wasting" your life away, who are they to judge that? In the atheistic viewpoint, there is NO higher being to absolutely judge that, any human opinion is as valid as the other, so that criticism ultimately fails. You could also look at God as the final truth, and put it into your perspective to keeping doing everything in science's name to reach this truth, thus propelling you to discover more and more. The mysterious sometimes require an element of faith, in this case faith is your catalyst for more knowledge.

I rather be safe than sorry.

Hope that helps.

 

[Tinker683]

The_Chosen,

Atheism is negativism.

True.

Visions, sightings, etc. of ghosts, spirits, possessions - you really think they are all just utter bullshit? Take that chance?

Who said they were bullshit? I just refuse to believe until proper evidence has been presented. Until then, I don't see any logical reason as to why I should believe in them.

Nothing is wrong with having some faith, just as long as you don't use it to answer everything.

Agreed. I have no beef with anyone with beliefs. Everybody has the right to believe what they wish.

Supernatural, multiple dimensions - rule all that out?

Nope. Just haven't had enough proof yet to believe they are are completely fact.

Put everything on human logic? Which has its flaws?

Human logic is a redundant combination of words. The logic we use to the only system. Are you propositioning there is another form of logic, one that is superior to human logic? One that is incapable of being flawwed?

Theories say the origins of the universe came through spontaneous creation. So some are basically saying "spontaneity" is their creator. I rather have God through spontaneity be my creator. Again, are you restricted logically here? No, you are embracing science every bit.

1) IN what way does God, rather than "spontaneity" have a somewhat more benefical effect on ones life?

2) Are you implying that their is an overall design to the Universe, that there is some sort of " higher meaning" to the Universe?

A belief in spiritual states, where anger, frustration, stress, etc. etc. are gone. Most spiritual people are kind, loving, caring, etc. It's good to listen to spiritual people.

1) What spirtiual states, and can you prove their existance?

2) Based on evidence from question 1, why should we listen to spiritual people as opposed to non-spiritual people?

Hope, other than the pessimistic idea of "live and then you die." But irresponsibility cannot be tolerated.

1) In what way is "live and then you die" pessimistic?

2) Elaborate what you mean by "irresponsibility"

Perspective - it all depends on that. I believe God put all of us here to live, learn, love, and enjoy the earth and all of God's creation through science, not the "magical poofing" method.

A good point, but one that could be turned right around back at you. Why do I have to believe in a God to be the creator of the Universe? Why is it for valid than secular evolution? Secondily, if it all depends on perspective, then I don't have to think about God at all. If it all hinges on my perspective, then hinging values on things that are important to me, from an outside source, is meaningless.

As a theist, you reject other silly theistic claims, some atheists base their doctrine SOLELY on these silly theistic claims that THEISTS THEMSELVES already have rejected.

1) You are advocating a structure of somekind on how to precieve God. Why is what you believe any more valid than what any other thiest with a different point of view believes?

2) In relation to the above question, on what do you base that you can reject all other faiths that differ from yours, and hold that yours holds any validtivity?

You are kind and fair towards religions, realizing it's good and bad. Not slandering in religion's name.

Agreed.

However, one must ask, why must one have a religion in order to be a good/bad person? If I don't need a religion to do good, then religion is meaningless for telling me how I should act then, isn't it? Furthermore, if I don't need religion for any moral imperitive, why then do I need religion at all?

You realize logically, that "creationism" has no scientific support, you realize, religion was made by humans so it's doomed to be flawed, same goes for the Bible.

Agreed. And, if religion was made by people, then why can it not be said that God was too made by people?

You realize religions are human interpretations of God for the purpose of winning power, control, converts, etc. But it is not ALL evil, but rather there is goodness, some overlook the goodness, you don't as a theist that understands.

Agreed. However, one must ask, if God is not about what religions say, then what is God, and how do you know he/she/it is what you say it is?

Believe in individual responsibility (Thinking God baby us humans is irresponsible), take advantage of the human belief system to propell you to work harder and reach whatever you desire.

Agreed.

There are alot more, but I'm not thinking fully right now. Basically it boils down to this, you lost nothing to believe in a creator, God. If God is true and you didn't believe in God, you could possible risk being separated from God.

Pascal's Wager. This has been disprovven already.

 

[Cactus Jack]

I think are good points to all. If I may sugest a book however that can convince you to become an atheist better then I: Atheism the case against God by G.H. Smith at the least it is extremely thought provoking. Anyone with an interest in religion, or philosophy should pick it up. Anyone in general for that matter.

 

[Xerxes]

I don't think it should matter what you are. In my religion (no I'm not christian) they say you can lead a good life no matter what religion you are, and definately won't be destined for hell when your done. People choose a certain religion based on a huge variety of reasons. Some choose to stick with the one they were raised with, and blindly follow it's teachings without ever asking a single question. Others don't believe believe in anything. Others believe in something but don't know what the hell it is.

As long as what you choose is constructive , I don't see why it should matter. IMO, there are many pro's and con's for each, but they're different for everyone.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Interesting points, thanks

Originally posted by Tinker683
Who said they were bullshit? I just refuse to believe until proper evidence has been presented. Until then, I don't see any logical reason as to why I should believe in them.

Nope. Just haven't had enough proof yet to believe they are are completely fact.

I'm just trying to emphasize that just because you weren't there at that moment in time and place to see such things, you can't simply outrule it based on your ignorance on that matter. I believe that there retains some truth in the countless voices that claim this and that, most of it is probably false, but making a bet that ALL of it is false is indeed a great gamble to take.

Also there are scientific theories on multiple dimensions, so if there is, how much do we know of it? The case of ignorance is applied here.

Human logic is a redundant combination of words. The logic we use to the only system. Are you propositioning there is another form of logic, one that is superior to human logic? One that is incapable of being flawwed?

Aliens could have superior logic. God has superior logic, God cannot be flawed as humans are. This is only true if they exist, I merely have faith. I cannot answer about the "incapable of being flawed" question, because I will not claim I know God personally like the countless religions do.

But I'm in no saying disregard logic and throw it out the window. It's our best tool for understanding the universe.

1) IN what way does God, rather than "spontaneity" have a somewhat more benefical effect on ones life?

I will not argue from a spiritual standpoint, but will resort to totally logic, since I believe you are an atheist.

Closed to this argument for God. Two options:

1. Spontaneity, science
2. God, science, spontaneity

Now which would you most gain from IF true? It depends on how the person views God if it is benefical or not, so it is subjective. If you view God as some evil, it won't be beneficial and once again, you don't know if God is evil or not, all you can go on is the interpretations humans make up in other religions therefore you are rejecting those notions of God, and I, as a theist, have also. I don't reject the possibility of a creator using science as his tool and power. I believe God put me on this earth to understand. Understanding is the key to everything.

If everyone is understanding and had understanding of one another, there would be no wars, no suffering, no hate, knowledge would grow, love would grow, etc.

Faith can be used as a catalyst to propell you to achieve more knowlege. I have faith in Cold Fusion, and it could be possible. Because of such faith, I believe in, my determination could end up paying off. Pretend I am trying to get to point B from point A. Faith is the car (the catalyst) that I will use. While others that don't use it, don't get to use the car. The human belief system is powerful indeed, so you should use it to you advantage. It's powerful enough for people to disregard instinct and commit suicide, it's powerful enough for people to sacrifice their own childen. It's power and if used wrongly will be evil.

2) Are you implying that their is an overall design to the Universe, that there is some sort of " higher meaning" to the Universe?

I don't know about the design, that is a subjective issue.

But "higher meaning," yes indeed. Once again, within this argument for God...(trying to use common sense here, forgive me)

• The universe "just is" - the physics laws "just is"
• God is ultimately responsible for the universe to be just the way it is.

Saying "just is" is responsible for the creation of the universe is the equivalent to calling it your creator, God.

Even if it were true, I rather my creator be God through science. Because if the case of God is true, then I could be able to reach final knowledge.

You may oppose my view and say it's "some fantasy" - but it is not, even if the case of "just is" is true, I have lost nothing, because I am equally determined as you to learn and understand everything around me.

Belief in God is an "extra" thing, some don't take it up because they believe (they don't know) that God is irrelevant. I believe God is relevant, and I have lost nothing having this type of perspective.

1) In what way is "live and then you die" pessimistic?

Pessimism means: A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view.

In this case, which is more gloomy to you? Belief that we have an ultimate purpose to learn, understand, love thanks to God, or by thanking the creator "just is" - where there lies no ultimate purpose.

2) Elaborate what you mean by "irresponsibility"

Someone: "God ordered me to kill her, I am innocent, the divine father ordered me too!! I'm not responsible!!"

Creationism, it's a cop out for lazy minded people, spending their entire lives trying to disprove evolution which is fact and a strong theory.

Someone: "Let's not progress in real science but rather "scientific" creationism!!"

Irresponsible? I would say so. They are many more cases but you get the point.

A good point, but one that could be turned right around back at you. Why do I have to believe in a God to be the creator of the Universe? Why is it for valid than secular evolution? Secondily, if it all depends on perspective, then I don't have to think about God at all. If it all hinges on my perspective, then hinging values on things that are important to me, from an outside source, is meaningless.

Yes, I never stated you "had to" anything. It's your perspective indeed, and I respect it. It's not more valid than evolution. But is evolution and then linking to God any less valid? No, some may say it's superfluous to do so, but have I lost anything? No. The only way for it to be more valid than evolution alone, is if there is proof God existed and evolution/science is God's tool. But I cannot say my view is any more valid than yours, I just have an "extra" belief in God that does not limit me in anyway.

1) You are advocating a structure of somekind on how to precieve God. Why is what you believe any more valid than what any other thiest with a different point of view believes?

My view is no more valid than of any other human, we need a superior being, authority, to state that, meanwhile there is no absolutes.

My percerption of God, is all for individual responsibilty, determination to learn/understand, I'm using my faith to improve. I'm all for self-improvement.

2) In relation to the above question, on what do you base that you can reject all other faiths that differ from yours, and hold that yours holds any validtivity?

I can't reject ALL other faiths. But faith in James R's Purple Magically Dragon Herbert that dwells in James R's garage is rejectable.

Again, I am not claiming I am right or more "valid" than any other perspective - religions love to do this so they strip away the individual responsibility of deciding to believe in God or not, they say "Believe or die" - some people will place their responsibility on those interpretors.

However, one must ask, why must one have a religion in order to be a good/bad person? If I don't need a religion to do good, then religion is meaningless for telling me how I should act then, isn't it? Furthermore, if I don't need religion for any moral imperitive, why then do I need religion at all?

I'm non-denominational, I learn what good I can and reject the bad. Some people do need religion to get their life back on the road, etc. But if you are an understanding person, then of course, you don't need it.

Agreed. And, if religion was made by people, then why can it not be said that God was too made by people?

Some say God is a concept derived from intelligent humans. It could be, but I put my belief in God not being a concept, again, I have lost nothing thinking this way.

Agreed. However, one must ask, if God is not about what religions say, then what is God, and how do you know he/she/it is what you say it is?

I'm glad you brought this up. I don't claim to know God personally so I don't bother to describe God. All I stick to as the truth, in my belief, is that God is the creator.

Pascal's Wager. This has been disprovven already.

It's related to Pascal's Wager, but in a very different perspective. I'm in no way stating that if you don't believe you wil go to hell and suffer an eternity, I don't claim knowledge that I do not know.

Again, I'm trying to argue with only logic, since my life experiences have led me to believe. But I don't lose anything believing in God while on earth, and you don't either if you're in the right perspective.

But there is still that possibility that *if* God is true, then refusing to believe in God with such limited knowledge you hold, using your ignorance to reject a creator and giving ultimate credit to God's tool, science as your sole creator (it did create you in a sense), you could separate yourself from God.

This is only true if God is the truth and I have no idea if you will distance yourself from God or not, but there is still that possibilty.

People may attack my common sense on this issue and that is completely understandable, I can't use my experiences because everyone has there own life experiences that are unique to them, therefore sharing my experiences would be totally influeincing what they want to believe in through MY perspective and I believe in individual responsibility, you believe through your own perspective, may it change or not.

Thanks.

 

[Xev]

Chosen:

Hmmm. I reserve the right to step in and debate this with you later, 'kay?

Btw, some athiests do believe in souls. It's a question I've been contemplating seriously these past few days.

Cronin:

I do not advocate my path to anyone. I literally cannot be anything but an athiest. I am too much of a skeptic to believe in anything without evidence.

I personally think that Christianity is a sham, religion merely an excuse for social control, and that the other religions I've studied are bunk.

I value reason and rationality. To believe in God or Gods is irrational, as there is no evidence for their existance and Ockham's razor suggests that we not believe in unnecessary entities.

Furthermore, if God is anything like that which man's religions conceive, He is an evil tyrant. To quote XTC:

Dear God
hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God,

I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears

and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting in the street
'cause they can't make opinions meet

about God,

I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind?..........

after we made you?

And the devil too!

Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but...
your name is on a lot of quotes in this book,

Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look
And all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true!

Well I know it ain't, and so do you!

dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
You're always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And it's the same the whole world 'round.
The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive
that my heart's here upon my sleeve.

If there's one thing I don't believe in

it's you....

dear God

Anything that could allow or create the evil that we see in the world is hardly deserving of my worship, and I sincerely hope that it does not exist.

I do not condemn theism per se, though. Irrational it may be, but irrationality has gotten some through many a long night. Trusting other humans is irrational, for instance, but many do so. I cannot condemn that for that. Perhaps I do as well.

After all, I am not a purely rational actor, and I doubt I ever could be.

Thus, although I may joke with Cris about being a "evangelical atheist", I am not.

As for what I am myself, I cannot say. I do reject all religions, and find the existance of God to be as likely as the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Thus I call myself an athiest, although "agnostic" also suits me....to a degree.

To quote H.P Lovecraft:

"I certainly can't see any sensible position to assume aside from that of complete scepticism tempered by a leaning toward that which existing evidence makes most probable. All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world , or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligble moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

And there I stand, Cthulhu help me, I can do no other.

To be frank, I no longer care whether God exists or not, and haven't cared in some time. I am more a skeptic than anything else, and could never be anything but a skeptic.

However, I keep letting myself be drawn into these bloody debates!

 

[Tinker683]

The_Chosen,

I'm just trying to emphasize that just because you weren't there at that moment in time and place to see such things, you can't simply outrule it based on your ignorance on that matter. I believe that there retains some truth in the countless voices that claim this and that, most of it is probably false, but making a bet that ALL of it is false is indeed a great gamble to take.

Also there are scientific theories on multiple dimensions, so if there is, how much do we know of it? The case of ignorance is applied here.

1) I, nor any humanist for that matter, do not claim that their can never be a God, nor can we claim with absolute certainty that the Big Bang Theory is absolute fact.

2) What gamble do you mean? Do you suggest that God acually cares for our existance? On what do you base this assumption?

Aliens could have superior logic. God has superior logic, God cannot be flawed as humans are. This is only true if they exist, I merely have faith. I cannot answer about the "incapable of being flawed" question, because I will not claim I know God personally like the countless religions do.

But I'm in no saying disregard logic and throw it out the window. It's our best tool for understanding the universe.

My apologies sir, but you have contridicted yourself. First you claim

1) That their is a God
2) That he holds superior logic
3) That he is infalible(sp?). ( If he is flawless beyond human comprehension... )

AND THEN, you say, "But I don't know him personally"

Well, if you don't know him personnally, then how do you know the above 3? Do you have proof of the above?

I will not argue from a spiritual standpoint, but will resort to totally logic, since I believe you are an atheist.

Closed to this argument for God. Two options:

1.Spontaneity, science
2.God, science, spontaneity



Now which would you most gain from IF true? It depends on how the person views God if it is benefical or not, so it is subjective. If you view God as some evil, it won't be beneficial and once again, you don't know if God is evil or not, all you can go on is the interpretations humans make up in other religions therefore you are rejecting those notions of God, and I, as a theist, have also. I don't reject the possibility of a creator using science as his tool and power. I believe God put me on this earth to understand. Understanding is the key to everything.

If everyone is understanding and had understanding of one another, there would be no wars, no suffering, no hate, knowledge would grow, love would grow, etc.

Faith can be used as a catalyst to propell you to achieve more knowlege. I have faith in Cold Fusion, and it could be possible. Because of such faith, I believe in, my determination could end up paying off. Pretend I am trying to get to point B from point A. Faith is the car (the catalyst) that I will use. While others that don't use it, don't get to use the car. The human belief system is powerful indeed, so you should use it to you advantage. It's powerful enough for people to disregard instinct and commit suicide, it's powerful enough for people to sacrifice their own childen. It's power and if used wrongly will be evil.

1) Define Faith, and what substance it has in logic

2) Once again, you contridict yourself. If God is purely based on my perspective, then
a) His meaning, in complete definition, rests solely on me. And thus, I can easily discard him, as he isn't nessacary
b) I CAN'T lose anything, because the thing you continue to pose that I "might lose"s' meaning rests solely with me.

3) Appealing to the human belief system to justify the existance of something is a fallacy. It's a fallacy because your conceeding that it rests within belief and not objective fact. Belief, by definition, is entirely subjective. If something is purely subjective, than it's "truthfulness" is as diverse as their are thoughts ina persons mind.

I don't know about the design, that is a subjective issue.

And it is therefore meaningless to say that their was a design, because said "design" can be anything, so long as it remains subjective.

But "higher meaning," yes indeed. Once again, within this argument for God...(trying to use common sense here, forgive me)

The universe "just is" - the physics laws "just is"
God is ultimately responsible for the universe to be just the way it is.

1) In what way does "commen sense" define the existance of God, as you have put it?

2) Prove that God is responsible for the way the Universe is, as you claim. ( Note- This will first require that you prove God's existance. If you can not do that, than the above arguement is meaningless )

Saying "just is" is responsible for the creation of the universe is the equivalent to calling it your creator, God.

This is true. However, in this case, God becomes an unnessacary word, because to say God created the Universe requires first that we define God, his role in the universe, and another yet long list of un-needed explanations. Occam's Razor begs that we discard "God created the Universe" because it is an un-needed proposition.

[/quote] Even if it were true, I rather my creator be God through science. Because if the case of God is true, then I could be able to reach final knowledge. [/quote]

1) Define "Final Knowledge", and prove it's existance, and validtivity.

[Personal Note: Like Many thiests, Chosen, you are beginning to use what George Carlin coined, "Spooky Language", which is defined as indefinable, unreachable tangents.

Ex: "Mysterious Gods", "Unknowable Truths", etc...]

[/quote] You may oppose my view and say it's "some fantasy" - but it is not, even if the case of "just is" is true, I have lost nothing, because I am equally determined as you to learn and understand everything around me. [/quote]

1) I disagree, until you prove your view validtivity, and logic, I see no reason to label anything but "wishful thinking". Not that it's bad wishful thinking, just un-needed.

2) I appluad your stride to find all availible truths.

In this case, which is more gloomy to you? Belief that we have an ultimate purpose to learn, understand, love thanks to God, or by thanking the creator "just is" - where there lies no ultimate purpose.

1) Your presupposing that without God, we have no purpose. This is a fallacy. Because we are self-aware, we give ourselves purpose. To suggest that we need a higher authority to give us meaning is not only un-needed, it's dangerous.

It's dangerous because, as you have obviously disaplyed, the said thiest is entirely dependent on "God" to give him meaning. If the thiest does not have this meaning, this his universe is, as you put it- glommy and meaningless.

If however, the thiest does not derive his source of meaning from God, then what kind of "meaning" does he derive from God, and can he only gain that meaning from God?

2) Why do we need an "ultimate purpose"? When you watch your cats/dogs/whatever you have for a pet go about it's day, do you think that it needs an ultimate purpose? Why can't life just be life? We do we need some "divine" purpose?

[/quote] Someone: "God ordered me to kill her, I am innocent, the divine father ordered me too!! I'm not responsible!!"

Creationism, it's a cop out for lazy minded people, spending their entire lives trying to disprove evolution which is fact and a strong theory.

Someone: "Let's not progress in real science but rather "scientific" creationism!!"

Irresponsible? I would say so. They are many more cases but you get the point. [/quote]

I do, and I agree with you.

Quick question though, to you or any thiest reading this thread:

If God ordered you to kill someone, would you?

or, more personnal to the guys:

If God asked you to rape a women, would you?

[/quote] Yes, I never stated you "had to" anything. It's your perspective indeed, and I respect it. It's not more valid than evolution. But is evolution and then linking to God any less valid? No, some may say it's superfluous to do so, but have I lost anything? No. The only way for it to be more valid than evolution alone, is if there is proof God existed and evolution/science is God's tool. But I cannot say my view is any more valid than yours, I just have an "extra" belief in God that does not limit me in anyway. [/quote]

1) Are you suggesting that, because I hold no belief in God ( a God, in which, you yourself have yet to define ), that I am "limited" in someway? If so, in what way? If not, than disreguard this question.

2) I agree, you haven't really lost anything, and nor have I.

My view is no more valid than of any other human, we need a superior being, authority, to state that, meanwhile there is no absolutes.

Why?

My percerption of God, is all for individual responsibilty, determination to learn/understand, I'm using my faith to improve. I'm all for self-improvement.

I stated this earlier, but I applaud your drive for self improvement. But, again, why do you need God?

I can't reject ALL other faiths. But faith in James R's Purple Magically Dragon Herbert that dwells in James R's garage is rejectable.

Again, I am not claiming I am right or more "valid" than any other perspective - religions love to do this so they strip away the individual responsibility of deciding to believe in God or not, they say "Believe or die" - some people will place their responsibility on those interpretors.

Well, prehaps the word all was indeed to grand. Prehaps most would suffice?

I'm non-denominational, I learn what good I can and reject the bad. Some people do need religion to get their life back on the road, etc. But if you are an understanding person, then of course, you don't need it.

1) If I don't need it at all, why does anyone need it at all? Couldn't we simply devise better ways to improve ones self than to resort to superstition and "spooky language" ?

2) If your choices, your selective decisions on whats moral and whats immoral of religion, reside in yourself solely, then why do you need religion to tell you whats right and wrong in the first place?

Some say God is a concept derived from intelligent humans. It could be, but I put my belief in God not being a concept, again, I have lost nothing thinking this way.

No, you haven't. But unless you should compell why exactly others should believe "your views", nobody needs to share your views, at all. Afterall, we have lost nothing

I'm glad you brought this up. I don't claim to know God personally so I don't bother to describe God. All I stick to as the truth, in my belief, is that God is the creator.

Again, you contridict yourself. You claim to know nothing of God, but yet you persist that you know that he's the creator!! If you don't know God personnally, then how do you know he is the creator!!

It's related to Pascal's Wager, but in a very different perspective. I'm in no way stating that if you don't believe you wil go to hell and suffer an eternity, I don't claim knowledge that I do not know.

Again, I'm trying to argue with only logic, since my life experiences have led me to believe. But I don't lose anything believing in God while on earth, and you don't either if you're in the right perspective.

But there is still that possibility that *if* God is true, then refusing to believe in God with such limited knowledge you hold, using your ignorance to reject a creator and giving ultimate credit to God's tool, science as your sole creator (it did create you in a sense), you could separate yourself from God.

This is only true if God is the truth and I have no idea if you will distance yourself from God or not, but there is still that possibilty.

People may attack my common sense on this issue and that is completely understandable, I can't use my experiences because everyone has there own life experiences that are unique to them, therefore sharing my experiences would be totally influeincing what they want to believe in through MY perspective and I believe in individual responsibility, you believe through your own perspective, may it change or not.

1) Once again, athiests do not believe that God is disproven, but unproven. When we recieve adequte information, then we will believe. Until then, however, we have no reason to believe

2) If we do not "suffer in hell" or any of that sort, then what do we have to lose from choosing not to believe in a creator?
a) Can we also be held accountable by this "God" if we lose what it is you claim we'd lose if we can not help but not believe in him because he refuses to provide adequte reason to believe?
b) If we have something to lose, Don't you think that God might be more than interested in "showing us the way" so to speak? And if he would be interested, why hasn't he? If he isn't, why should we?

 

[Tinker683]

Cronin,

I know that you asked me not to attack anyone's points. And I apologize if my doing so of The_Chosen has offended you, but if you'll permit me, I have a reason to.

Honestly, I can't tell you what to believe. I don't think any free-thinker tries to tell another what he should and shouldn't believe. The only thing I could, and would, ever ask you, is to simply think for yourself, always.

I questioned The_Chosen, as I did, to try and demonstrate logical reasoning presented before you. Even if I am wrong, which I could very well be, I won't at all ever assume that I am correct, I will atleast have shown you that thinking for yourself, that always questioning is a very valuable thing!, and it will always point you in the right direction. That much, I will profess.

Myself, I am an athiest ( a Secular Humanist to be more specific ) because I can't be anything else. I can not with honesty say that I know their is a God, nor can I say that I don't know. Does that make me an agnostic? If you feel so, then prehaps I am.

I consider myself an athiest, rather than agnostic, because while I do not know if their is a God or not, I do not yet see any reason as to why I should believe. If that day ever comes, then I will happily call myself "thiest". But until that day, I can only, with honesty, tell myself that I am an athiest.

If my debate with The Chosen offends you, than I will take it to another thread, and you will have my sincere apologies. If you do not mind, then I hope that our debate will be intellectually stimulating for you, in any respect

*edit*: If you would like to see information reguarding Secular Humanism, than I would direct you this link

 

[Raithere]

Re: Ignorance is seldom the best solution of a problem.

Just a couple of quick comments here.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Atheism is negativism.

You need to be careful with this generalization. While Atheism is a negative assertion, a statement of disbelief, negativism indicates a larger method at work and gives false representation.

negativism n.
1. A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
2. Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.

Put everything on human logic? Which has its flaws?

Out of curiosity, what are the flaws in logic?

Giving credit to spontaneity, rather God, is insulting don't you think?

Insulting to whom? Your analogy implies it would be insulting to God who, if it doesn't exist, could hardly be insulted.

~Raithere

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Interesting

Originally posted by Tinker683
1) I, nor any humanist for that matter, do not claim that their can never be a God, nor can we claim with absolute certainty that the Big Bang Theory is absolute fact.

Agreed.

2) What gamble do you mean? Do you suggest that God acually cares for our existance? On what do you base this assumption?

Some atheists (not all) 1) don't believe in spirits, ghosts, because it relates to God in some way --or-- 2) it's doesn't relate to God

1st statement is assumed more. There "unsolved mysteries," like the cases of possession, ghostly sightings, spiritual influences, etc.

It's a gamble, to decide to outrule them all to support your case of no belief in God. I don't outrule ALL claims ever made, I believe there is some truth in at least some of the claims, do I know? of course not.

My apologies sir, but you have contridicted yourself. First you claim

1) That their is a God
2) That he holds superior logic
3) That he is infalible(sp?). ( If he is flawless beyond human comprehension... )

• I believe there is a God.
• If God holds logic that is equal to us humans, would you call it God? That is what I meant.
• I have not mentioned God is infallible.

So sir, where have I contradicted myself?

AND THEN, you say, "But I don't know him personally"

Well, if you don't know him personnally, then how do you know the above 3? Do you have proof of the above?

Atheists, such as Cris, associate the word believe with know. This type of logic is defeatable, Raithere, this is where human logic is defeatable, there is a certain website I read a while back in which someone tries to use logic to prove God's existence but his logic is defeatable.

• I believe there is a God, but do I know? no
• If God has logic that is equal to a mere human, it is not God.
• I never stated God was infallible, why? Because I don't know what God is. The ONLY conclusion I can draw is, God is the creator. Why else call it God?

There is a reason I say believe, and that means "without proof." So please, do not ask me to prove this and that in order to discredit me, it's really pointless.

1) Define Faith, and what substance it has in logic

It has nothing to do with logic. Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I have faith in Cold Fusion. Do I have proof for Cold Fusion? No, I can merely believe.

Perspective - I use my belief for the desire to prove a truth. I'm sure many scientists have faith in the Big Bang Theory and wish to prove it. First you believe it to be true, then you prove it to be true, and your faith in that matter is no longer there.

2) Once again, you contridict yourself. If God is purely based on my perspective, then
a) His meaning, in complete definition, rests solely on me. And thus, I can easily discard him, as he isn't nessacary
b) I CAN'T lose anything, because the thing you continue to pose that I "might lose"s' meaning rests solely with me.

I never stated "God is purely based on my perspective." Yes, you can discard God if you believe, in your perspective, God isn't necessary. There is one unified definition of God - the creator.

What I proposed by, "I haven't lost anything" is this, prove to me where I am handicapped in learning through science, logic of the universe compared to any atheist?

Let's use some math here:

You have logic = logic
Me have logic + belief in God = logic + extra

Show me where I am restricted to logic compared to someone like you?

You can't? How do you know this? Or do you merely believe it? It does rest solely on you, because that is your perspective, what YOU believe.

3) Appealing to the human belief system to justify the existance of something is a fallacy. It's a fallacy because your conceeding that it rests within belief and not objective fact. Belief, by definition, is entirely subjective. If something is purely subjective, than it's "truthfulness" is as diverse as their are thoughts ina persons mind.

How did I appeal to the human belief system to justify the existence of anything? Explicitly show me where and prove it. I never justified such in a manner as, "because I believe God exists, God must exist." No no, fallacies do not apply to me. Becareful with how you use it, I have been in many debates with countless atheists.

And it is therefore meaningless to say that their was a design, because said "design" can be anything, so long as it remains subjective.

Agreed.

1) In what way does "commen sense" define the existance of God, as you have put it?

I'm not using "common sense" to define the existence of God at all. I am using it to try to convince our buddy Cronin.

Why did you not answer my common sense questions? Which would you choose, would you most benefit from *if* true?

2) Prove that God is responsible for the way the Universe is, as you claim. ( Note- This will first require that you prove God's existance. If you can not do that, than the above arguement is meaningless )

I merely believe, so what does that mean? I can't prove it. So please, don't ask me to prove it.

This is true. However, in this case, God becomes an unnessacary word, because to say God created the Universe requires first that we define God, his role in the universe, and another yet long list of un-needed explanations. Occam's Razor begs that we discard "God created the Universe" because it is an un-needed proposition.

If you use Occam's Razor you might as well not ask yourself about the origins of the universe. Because you DON'T KNOW if spontaneity or God is responsible for the origin of the universe. There it's superfluous to think about it.

So, in simplified terms, it's an "extra" thought to believe God is responsible for our origins.

Which would you rather choose to be your creator?

• Spontaneity
• God

Apply Occam's Razor, and don't even bother to question about the universe's origins.

1) Define "Final Knowledge", and prove it's existance, and validtivity.

I can't, once again I merely believe. So yes, you are right if you call this wishful thinking. I have an insatiable desire to learn as much as I can, and I believe that since God is the creator, God will be able to answer all questions about the universe.

Once again, with this type of wishful thinking, what have I lost? I just see it as going the extra mile, you say the extra mile is unneeded, I don't.

[Personal Note: Like Many thiests, Chosen, you are beginning to use what George Carlin coined, "Spooky Language", which is defined as indefinable, unreachable tangents.

Ex: "Mysterious Gods", "Unknowable Truths", etc...]

LoL!! I believe God is the ultimate mysterious and to me God is the ultimate truth. "Spooky language"? Hehe, you could logically say that, but let me elaborate.

Reaching the beginning of the universe, learning how everything came to be, I believe is reaching an ultimate truth about everything. And yes you can call me on my wishful thinking, but I believe God holds all truth, God would end my hunger for knowledge.

And in the atheistic viewpoint, when I die, my hunger for knowledge ends also, but which would you rather choose?

• Die, quest for knowledge ends
• Die, God - quest for knowledge ends

Both could be true, but I would pick the 2nd choice, as I would benefit more. God is that "extra" mile I choose to run for.

1) I disagree, until you prove your view validtivity, and logic, I see no reason to label anything but "wishful thinking". Not that it's bad wishful thinking, just un-needed.

Unneeded as some would view. But to me, it's just the better choices that does not limit me in any way at all compared to other atheists.

2) I appluad your stride to find all availible truths.

You also.

1) Your presupposing that without God, we have no purpose. This is a fallacy. Because we are self-aware, we give ourselves purpose. To suggest that we need a higher authority to give us meaning is not only un-needed, it's dangerous.

Don't apply a fallacy to me unless you are really sure it does 100% apply to me. Ask Xev .

But anyway, note where I have stated "without God, we have no purpose." I did not state that at all. I agree that we are self-aware and we give ourselves purpose, you're right on the money.

I never stated "we need a higher authority to give us meaning." Forgive me, but I should clarify on "ultimate purpse."

Most atheists would say that our purpose is "just is." And may I ask you, where is the "ultimate purpose" in "just is"? I shall try to avoid confusing terminology next time.

Atheists can't name anything as an "ultimate purpose" because other atheists may disagree (once again, absence of absolutes), so there is no ultimate in the atheistic view.

But if you state that it's humanity's "ultimate purpose" to just exist, I can't agree with you, it's your perspective and you are right.

It's dangerous because, as you have obviously disaplyed, the said thiest is entirely dependent on "God" to give him meaning. If the thiest does not have this meaning, this his universe is, as you put it- glommy and meaningless.

I give myself meaning - individual responsibility.

But I rest on God for ultimate meaning. I just don't accept "just is" as our ultimate meaning, I rather run the extra and choose God.

If however, the thiest does not derive his source of meaning from God, then what kind of "meaning" does he derive from God, and can he only gain that meaning from God?

From himself. As I said, I believe God put us here to live, learn, understand, love, and enjoy the universe. Ultimate meaning would come from God, but not meaning in which we give ourselves, our own individual responsibilities.

2) Why do we need an "ultimate purpose"? When you watch your cats/dogs/whatever you have for a pet go about it's day, do you think that it needs an ultimate purpose? Why can't life just be life? We do we need some "divine" purpose?

Sorry, I can't accept to believe that "just is" is ultimately responsible for being our creator. We have no proof that spontaneity is ultimately responsible for bringing us about or proof for God for that matter.

Your definition of "ultimate purpose" is different from mine, completely understandable.

I do, and I agree with you.

Quick question though, to you or any thiest reading this thread:

If God ordered you to kill someone, would you?

or, more personnal to the guys:

If God asked you to rape a women, would you?

Kill: Yes, if the causes are reasonable, like "Go kill Hitler!"

Rape: You and the woman are the only ones left, this is for the sake of the entire human race, yes.

But if God does not give me "reasonable causes" I will not carry God's word out and I will refuse and reject such a God if God is evil - I rather burn in hell than be with this type of God, notice most atheists already reject these notions of God, I do also.

1) Are you suggesting that, because I hold no belief in God ( a God, in which, you yourself have yet to define ), that I am "limited" in someway? If so, in what way? If not, than disreguard this question.

2) I agree, you haven't really lost anything, and nor have I.

Nope, nice way to try to get me into a "corner argument" though, smart move. If I answered, "Yes" - my credibility in this argument would be severely damaged.

No one is better than another or "more superior" - atheists I have known personally have problems with thinking like that...

Why?

Within just humans, there are no absolutes. (Maybe moral absolutes, but I don't want to get into that.) If there is a superior alien that states, "I will kill you all if you do not eat apples." (Sorry for using a frivolous example) The alien's word will become an absolute, everyone will listen to the alien, they don't want to die since the alien is superior to all of them. The same applies to God. But let's not argue over aliens.

I stated this earlier, but I applaud your drive for self improvement. But, again, why do you need God?

We all don't know if we really do need God or not. Why? You ask? Because I simply choose to, I want to, I don't want to be an atheist associated with some negativism. I lose nothing thinking this way, and it's beneficial to me.

But of course, you can disregard all of it as wishful thinking. So be it, I understand.

Well, prehaps the word all was indeed to grand. Prehaps most would suffice?

Yes, I guess you could say that. I reject religions like Puritanism, Mormon, etc. Christianity, I do not fully reject nor do I fully believe in. It's indeed full of human interpretations and flaws. But I am no Christian.

1) If I don't need it at all, why does anyone need it at all? Couldn't we simply devise better ways to improve ones self than to resort to superstition and "spooky language" ?

Good question. If I want it at all, why does anyone else want it? But this is for convincing a fellow sciforums.com person.

What do you mean by "resort to superstition" - how is it exactly affecting me? Am I logically incapable? Will I disregard evoluton and all of science and then believe in magic?

2) If your choices, your selective decisions on whats moral and whats immoral of religion, reside in yourself solely, then why do you need religion to tell you whats right and wrong in the first place?

Not necessarily, "reside in myself solely." Everyone sane and human knows that it is wrong to rape infants, kill offspring, etc. Religions does not give us all our morals. I don't need religion to tell me what is right and wrong, I never stated that.

But religion has some good teachings, Golden Rule, some of the Ten Commandmants (thou shalt not kill, etc.).

No, you haven't. But unless you should compell why exactly others should believe "your views", nobody needs to share your views, at all. Afterall, we have lost nothing

Nobody needs to share your views either, afterall we have lost nothing

Again, you contridict yourself. You claim to know nothing of God, but yet you persist that you know that he's the creator!! If you don't know God personnally, then how do you know he is the creator!!

I BELIEVE and NOT KNOW.

Take my orange in the box analogy that I presented to Cris a while back:

Situation: We don't know that the heck is in the box.

You: I know there is an apple in the box. (How do you know? Have you directly perceived and experienced? Therefore you cannot know.)

Me: I believe there is an apple in the box. (I'm fine here )

I believe God is the creator, that is why I call God, God.

1) Once again, athiests do not believe that God is disproven, but unproven. When we recieve adequte information, then we will believe. Until then, however, we have no reason to believe

Yes, Tyler, Cris, Xev made that perfectly clear to me.

This is just my opinion, but agnostics are more likely to examine any evidence of God with a fair and open mind. After all you based your entire life on the doctrine of atheism, but this is just my opinion.

2) If we do not "suffer in hell" or any of that sort, then what do we have to lose from choosing not to believe in a creator?

Nothing my friend.

a) Can we also be held accountable by this "God" if we lose what it is you claim we'd lose if we can not help but not believe in him because he refuses to provide adequte reason to believe?

It depends, but there is a possibility that you could distance yourself with God.

Answer these few questions percentage-wise:

1. How much knowledge do you possess in all of mankind's history?
2. How much knowledge do you possess of the entire universe?

So based on your very very limited knowledge (ignorance), can you honestly state that you know God is irrelevant, or can you only believe this to be?

b) If we have something to lose, Don't you think that God might be more than interested in "showing us the way" so to speak? And if he would be interested, why hasn't he? If he isn't, why should we?

I don't know about the "showing us the way" mentality. Some theists may claim, "look at all the miracles, Jesus came down, ghosts, spirits, possessions claimed by renowned psychologists, etc. etc. etc."

But I don't honestly know if God did "show us the way", because obviously, why am I still in belief of God and that I don't know God exists? Good questions, questions are the way to learning and acquiring/discovering more knowledge.

Interesting, I see and understand your argument.

You are not offensive at all, I appreciate such an intelligent debate.

Thanks

 

[Avatar]

believing in god is a belief based on no evidence. maybe there is a god, but I don't care if there is before I'm givean any evidence. before that there is no god (in my relative universe perception)

blindly believing is on one step with stupidity.
with the same success I could believe in all poweerful Mickey Mouse who lives in the 9th dimmension.
the possibility that Mickey Mouse lives there is the same as for god/gods any god or godess.
and to think that one 2000 year old belief system is the right one from 100s here on earth is really not likable.

I'm an atheist, but I don't reject the possibility for a god, but the possibility is almost infinitly small.


the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth. everything is relative.


cheers,
/Avatar/

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Originally posted by Avatar
believing in god is a belief based on no evidence. maybe there is a god, but I don't care if there is before I'm givean any evidence. before that there is no god (in my relative universe perception)

blindly believing is on one step with stupidity.
with the same success I could believe in all poweerful Mickey Mouse who lives in the 9th dimmension.
the possibility that Mickey Mouse lives there is the same as for god/gods any god or godess.
and to think that one 2000 year old belief system is the right one from 100s here on earth is really not likable.

I'm an atheist, but I don't reject the possibility for a god, but the possibility is almost infinitly small.


the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth. everything is relative.


cheers,
/Avatar/

 

[Avatar]

what does your copy of my post mean?

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Originally posted by Avatar
what does your copy of my post mean?

rotmfflmmfaolmfamfpwmfh!

hahaha! That was supposed to be a valid reply, but somehow it got messed. XD

 

[~The_Chosen~]

hmm..

Originally posted by Avatar
blindly believing is on one step with stupidity.

Atheist negavitism So I'm guessing you read my posts right? Am I "blindly" believing? If so --or-- if not, depending on your answer, is it still one step with stupidity? Whatever answer you provide, how and why? Elaborate

 

[Avatar]

actually I have read no posts in this thread.
and I'm not aware of no your statements made here.
I'll read the posts now.

and it's not negativism it's critique

edit to add- there is so much and not all is interesting. I won't read everything. Consider my post "as is"

 

[Cronin]

Hello Folks.

Thanks so much for your replies which I looked to with a question in mind. What does this person get from believing the way they do? Usually, we choose to act or believe a certain way because we see or sense some type of a payoff.

For example, Chosen:

You say that you would rather be safe than sorry.

It sounds like you are saying that you cannot be sure about the existence of God but you choose to believe in God because, if there is a God, there will be some type of a payoff in the end. That is, you won't be separated from God. If I am reading your reply correctly, I am wondering why you believe that it would be better to be with God than without God? What would the benefit be to you? Given that you say that you don't know God personally and that you don't bother to describe God, I am trying to understand what it is that you envision or sense about God which causes you to believe that it would be better to be with God than without God.

Thanks.

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Pascal's Wager doesn't work-- too many religions say you must believe in THEIR EXACT MANIFESTATION OF GOD if you don't want to go to hell.

Also, there's the point of:

If my religion says you must chop off your left arm if you want to go to heaven, how does Pascal's Wager work here? Would you do anything to be safe in case God really does exist (extremely small possibilty)? You have to choose one religion, or acknowledge that if the Xtian God is the /real/ God, that you'll go to hell for choosing something else ETC.

I find that since the chance of God existing is so small, and since it's so difficult to believe something with all your heart just because it might benifit you, there really isn't any point in believing in God.

 

[Zero]

Well, I'll have to say some things, because I have to. I'll probably get my a$$ whupped by logical arguments however it is worth a shot.

You really can't sum up all the pros or cons in one post. I do have some stuff to say.

Pros of religion: You are placing your faith in some superpowered deity or some all-embracing principle, so you have a sense of emotional security. Not to mention some sense of morality, too, since you consider the deity or whatever to be watching you and guiding you. Somewhat right brained.

Cons of REligion: Some religious types become too cold fused, and their minds become closed to new ideas or change. This does not happen if you are smart, if you get the true meaning of the religion rather than following it word by word. But it is very common, and I tell you it is one of the things that are hindering science a great deal.

Pros of Atheism: You are relying on yourself, so you develop a sense of self reliance. You learn independence, and also your mind is unhampered and free to explore what you want. Great potential for logical and rational thought. Somewhat left brained.

Cons of Atheism: I am an atheist, so it will be hard for me to write this fairly. But...since you are self reliant, sometimes it requires more effort and pain in difficult situations than religious people do. Also, it becomes a little bit easier to lose your sense of morality. I absolutely disagree with this, but too many theists are claiming this for me to ignore it. BElieve it or not, your choice.

PRos of Agnosticism: none. Boring and bland viewpoint, you are a fence sitter saying "I don't know".

Cons of Agnosticism: I just said it.

Other: I hope I didn't forget anything.



Again, do NOT take this as some generalization. It is just the tiny bit I've seen through my years of life.