Convince me, please.

[~The_Chosen~]

Cronin

Originally posted by Cronin
Usually, we choose to act or believe a certain way because we see or sense some type of a payoff.

I couldn't mention my own personal experiences, because I doubt it would convince anyone either way. Also there is a lack of trust so mentioning anything personal that led to my belief would be a waste of time.

I admit, theists do not have much ground, since you can't prove God logically.

For example, Chosen:

You say that you would rather be safe than sorry.

Just remember, that is NOT the ultimate reason to why I believe. I don't rest my belief entirely on that, that's ridiculous. You see, I am at a disadvantage to argue with logic and common sense. Common sense dictates that we choose the most beneficial path. It was stated because you don't know what to choose, and that was a little point to "maybe" help you.

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.

No, I am not even sure about the payoff in the end, but it's a possibility.

Once again, what do you lose? Hmm? Compare me to any atheist and show me how I am logically handicapped against them.

You have two choices:
1) Spontaneity is your creator
2) God through spontaneity or something else is your creator.

What makes the first any more valid than the second? Common sense rules that we should pick the more beneficial one to us if correct. But some may counter my common sense and argue that common sense would rule to rule out unneeded ideas. Will if you apply that there, then you have no creator, because if you refuse to believe anything, either spontaneity or God as your creator because this idea is deemed "unneeded" and you shouldn't "waste" your time with it, to them it's a waste, to me, no.

Basically I call my creator, God, that is why I believe in God, because I believe in a creator.

That is, you won't be separated from God.

You see it's not even closely related to Pascal's Wager. There are still chances, many many chances. I choose to take the chance that would benefit me more.

Now which path would you rather choose, *if* true?
1) You die - Your quest for knowledge ends
2) You die - God - your quest for knowledge ends

Use your common sense here.

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?

I simply refuse to believe my creator is *just* science. Science is not my God since I can use it even as my tool. Yet, have I lost anything believing that science is another creator's tool? No.

Also, I was an atheist for quite a while, they already reject the many notions of religious Gods, as I have also. My atheists friends were very negative concerning religion, the negativism flows too freely in one. Say some missionaries are in a mall, and they are being kind and handling out flyers for their church. My friends would disrespectfully take the flyers and throw it down on the ground in front of their faces, then they would start an argument with the kind missionaries, they would try to provoke the kind people and start an actual fight, saying religion is a bunch of BS and for idiotic morons. What have this religious people done to them? This is where my distaste for atheism grew, they look at religion so negatively that I could no longer stand it. It was then that I met a very spiritual science teacher that the course of my belief changed to non-denominational theism.

What would the benefit be to you?

I would not be associatied with atheism any longer. I refuse to call spontaneity my ultimate creator. Proof? you would ask? Humans will never reach proof to answering the true origin(s) of the universe(s) - not in my lifetime. If believing in God did handicap me logically compared to another atheist, I would not take it up. I am still a freethinker.

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.

Read my post again, those are my logical and common sense reasons to believe in God, the rest rely on my experiences and use of the human belief system.

Meawhile you can be an atheist and not even believe in any beginning origin of the universe --or-- believe and call spontaneity your ultimate creator to led things to "just is."

My perspective is no less valid than theirs. I have that extra that I say I want, others would say it is unneeded.

Thanks.

Originally posted by 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.

Good points, Zero.

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.

I don't consider God as a parent figure, religions love to interpret that. I don't know abut the "watching you and guiding you" concept, since it was used by religions to say, "don't do evil, God is watching over you..."

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.

Yep, embracing science and learning.

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.

I have these pros of atheism too then, since I believe in individual responsibility and science.

 

[Cronin]

Hello again Chosen,

What causes you to reason that by not believing in God we might run the risk of being separated from God?

Thanks.

 

[Cronin]

Hello Zero.

Thanks for your reply.

Under "Cons of Atheism" you wrote: "

"since you are self reliant, sometimes it requires more effort and pain in difficult situations than religious people"

I find this statement to be extremely interesting. Why, do you think, do religious people sometimes require less effort and experience less pain in difficult situations that do atheists?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Cronin

Originally posted by Cronin
Hello again Chosen,

What causes you to reason that by not believing in God we might run the risk of being separated from God?

Thanks.

It's a possibility. And it's my opinion, none of that: "if you don't believe in God you go to hell for eternity" crap.

Did you answer those two questions?

1)How much knowledge do you possess in the entire history of mankind?
2)How much knowledge do you possess in the entire universe?

No one has the right to state in a simple generalization that God is irrelevant, we are very very very ignorant in the amout of knowledge we possess, believe it or not. It's either you use your ignorance to disregard God completely, or regard God --or-- they are just rejecting notions of God(s) that have already been rejected by certain theists.

They may say the Puritan God is irrelevant because of the flaws of religion.

Here I'll use some deductive logic.

Everything came into existence,
Humans were created (that is came into existence),
Therefore, there is a creator.

From there, I call my ultimate creator, God. It's also true that the earth, universe is also your creator, since they did bring us into existence.

I lose nothing thinking this way, I just don't call some theory my ultimate creator. Yet I can still learn through science.

Show me where I am logically handicapped compared to any atheist, then I will give up my theism.

EDIT: Basically everyone has these choices:

1. I believe God is relevant.
2. I believe God is irrelevant.
3. I lack any belief in God.
4. I'm unsure.

Simply, I chose option 1.

Option 2: Believe the opposite?
Option 3: Don't even question yourself about God since obviously, there is no concrete proof.
Option 4: Think some more.

 

[Cronin]

Hello Tinker683.

How probable is it, do you think, for a person to be a free-thinking theist?

Given the totality of the human experience, including that which Secular Humanism rejects because it has yet to be explained scientifically, do you find Secular Humanism to be limiting or exclusionary?

P.S.

Thanks so much for your contributions to this thread.

 

[Cronin]

Hello Xev.

Thanks for your reply.

If you had your way, would you do away with non-rational human experiences and opt for emotionless, rational human experiences only?

 

[Cronin]

Hello Elbaz.

Thanks for your reply.

What do you get from your religion that makes it worthwhile for you to believe the way you do?

 

[Cronin]

Hello Chosen.

On what do you base your opinion about being "with" or "separated from" God?

I am not asking you to give up your theism. I am simply curious about what it is that makes some people believe as strongly as they do, no matter what their beliefs are.

I am not attacking your beliefs. I am simply asking questions.

It is possible that you have nothing to lose by believing the way you do. However, isn't it also possible that the atheist and agnostic have nothing to lose by believing the way they do?

What I would like to know is... What do you gain from your belief system?

Thanks.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cronin
Hello Chosen.

On what do you base your opinion about being "with" or "separated from" God?

Good question, but basing on human ignorance and stating God is irrelevant?

Cronin, it is my opinion, and you don't need to count it, theists have little logical grounds to argue.

I am not asking you to give up your theism. I am simply curious about what it is that makes some people believe as strongly as they do, no matter what their beliefs are.

We all have our own personal experiences, Cronin. I simply chose this path.

You can tell me to give up my theism, but first, show me where I am logically handicapped compared to any atheist.

Theist: evolution + God
Atheist: evolution

I am basically an atheist, except I accept God.

I am not attacking your beliefs. I am simply asking questions.

There exists a creator. I call the end of all creators, God. How do others know that the beginning of creation is the Big Bang? Well?

Do you understand my viewpoint? God to me, is not some personal figure, God is the ultimate creator, the very beginning of existence.

It is possible that you have nothing to lose by believing the way you do. However, isn't it also possible that the atheist and agnostic have nothing to lose by believing the way they do?

Yes, possible both ways, who's to say my way is the truth? or theirs?

What I would like to know is... What do you gain from your belief system?

Thanks.

I use it to learn. As I said, the point of our existence (given to us by the beginning of existence - I call this God) is to learn, explore, love, enjoy, etc.

My view is probably similar to any atheist's, I am still a free-thinker, if you dont' believe I am, try to use an example to prove me wrong.

The belief system is a powerful tool. Science is a powerful tool. I believe in Cold Fusion and it'll help me to become more determined to proving my belief to all. People might say, "you're stupid for believing in Cold Fusion, etc." But it's because of these beliefs that new discoveries and ideas emerge. Einstein probably believed in his theory, then he validated it and it became the truth.

It all ultimately lies on the individual's perspective.

 

[Teg]

~The_Chosen~, thank you for a fine list of false assertions

I shall try my best to show my limited skepticism (not negativism).

Atheism contains some negativism.

I will not dispute that some atheists are negativists. Your generalization that atheism in general lacks logical basis for any working theory concerning theology is ignorance of a few simple facts:
To call something a truth we ussually need observable data that can be observed by any individual. What such evidence do we have for a deity? There have been higher incidence of UFO (of the alien variety) sightings than any contact with a "god". To assume that UFO's are real would require some sort of cloaking technology that can mask the vessel from radars. Then we must also assume that instead of concentrating on the larger habitations of humans in Africa, Asia, and South America, they have instead concentrated on the South of the U.S. Is that proof 100% that aliens have not visited Earth? Anyone who says that they absolutely know something, is absolutely lying. To the point I do not believe in alien contact either, which has more supporting evidence.

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

So because we have a few accounts that are infrequently accompanied by videos of smoke and mirrors, I am supposed to assert that phenomena to be true? In most versions of the afterlife a seperate realm is defined. So why would people from 100s or more years ago still inhabit this place? Shouldn't they be in heaven or hell? With all the people dying shouldn't we have more incidence of these sightings. These sightings can be more easily explained through the common phenomena of compensation. We want to believe that death is not the end so we create the same stories of self- reinforcing garbage that fools us into thinking that we are happy.

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

While it may alter my perception of any given person, I would not be inclined toward any injurious activities concerning said person. I might hold more respect for the person that sheds those primitive beliefs altogether, but in the totem pole of thinking, those with faith who are not using it as a crutch in every situation are higher on my list than were the case not to be true.

Supernatural, multiple dimensions - rule all that out?

To a degree of certainty only. Just because you can think of something, is not sufficient cause to believe that idea. Back it up with some data and will be less skeptical.

Put everything on human logic? Which has its flaws?

To have postulated a god it must be. That is the only major error in judgement I can find. In any scenario we will always have bias. That is why in all secular activities we must have multiple observers for the truth to be found. Most religions rely on a single or several accounts. They rant on about legerdemain that if were claimed today, would be immediately banished from thought as the paranoid schizofrenic ravings of a lunatic.

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.

Are these theories non-secular? There might be a few fringe scientists still holding onto creation. Most hold the theory that space is infinite. As a collary to that time is infinite. No start, no end. Truth is not about what we prefer. It is abour what we can define through observation and deduction.

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.

The more logical term would be sedated. 90% of all people here in the US are religious. That can alter any polling that you try. Religious people are just as likely to commit crimes. From personal experience I have also found religious people more likely to beat their children. I think it comes from the same strict upbringing that led them to the church. People from either ilk are generally no less or more likely to be any given personality type.

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

I would argue that life means more to me because it is the one-shot game that we have observed. By what basis must we be labeled irresponsible. It has been my experience that assurances often lull people into such a state. Religion is the primary source of affirmation for most.

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.

Proof- it all depends on that. I don't know from what science texts you divined this ""magical poofing"" method, but I would guess from your limited knowledge concerning this subject you have not been near an updated versions.

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.

That is true sometimes. Most theist do not hold these beliefs mainly because they have no knowledge of them. How many theist actually read their texts. Based on the average reading rates it is obvious that only those exposed to bible study or theistic classes have a high chance of doing so. That you realize that some of what your brothers assert is silly, is a good step.

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

This starting to sound more like a pledge of some kind. It started as a weird semblance of assertions and now has degradated into some corralary of the ten commandments.

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.

Wow......I am with you 100%. Where did that pearl of knowledge come from?

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.

The first part is an accurate observation. I don'e exactly understand the point you are trying to make with the second part.

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.

How exactly do you accomplish this? I guess our current president is the only example I have. Use that religion to collect support from constituents. Does it matter whether you believe/understand that religion.

You're still a free-thinker.

The word religion is a rejection of this idea. Religion is the passing of tradition, practices, and ideas from parent to child. That requires the imposition of these concepts.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Welcome Teg, you have yet to prove where my assertions are false.

Originally posted by Teg
I shall try my best to show my limited skepticism (not negativism).

I shall also try my best to show my limited skepticism.

I will not dispute that some atheists are negativists. Your generalization that atheism in general lacks logical basis for any working theory concerning theology is ignorance of a few simple facts:

How did you get from my simple statement to all this jargon?

Where from my statement did you get, "your generalization that atheism in general lacks logical basis for any working theory concerning theology is ignorance of a few facts"? Hmm...or did you just assume and extrapolate?

To call something a truth we ussually need observable data that can be observed by any individual. What such evidence do we have for a deity? There have been higher incidence of UFO (of the alien variety) sightings than any contact with a "god". To assume that UFO's are real would require some sort of cloaking technology that can mask the vessel from radars. Then we must also assume that instead of concentrating on the larger habitations of humans in Africa, Asia, and South America, they have instead concentrated on the South of the U.S. Is that proof 100% that aliens have not visited Earth? Anyone who says that they absolutely know something, is absolutely lying. To the point I do not believe in alien contact either, which has more supporting evidence.

So you chose to believe the opposite, that they don't exist. I believe UFO's are a possibility, I'm not about to rule out with absolute certainty that they do not exist basing it upon my ignorance on the matter.

So because we have a few accounts that are infrequently accompanied by videos of smoke and mirrors, I am supposed to assert that phenomena to be true?

Nope, but you can't say it's not true. You can only believe the opposite.

In most versions of the afterlife a seperate realm is defined. So why would people from 100s or more years ago still inhabit this place? Shouldn't they be in heaven or hell? With all the people dying shouldn't we have more incidence of these sightings. These sightings can be more easily explained through the common phenomena of compensation. We want to believe that death is not the end so we create the same stories of self- reinforcing garbage that fools us into thinking that we are happy.

Again, what religion are you opposing? I hope you do understand what my theism is all about.

While it may alter my perception of any given person, I would not be inclined toward any injurious activities concerning said person. I might hold more respect for the person that sheds those primitive beliefs altogether, but in the totem pole of thinking, those with faith who are not using it as a crutch in every situation are higher on my list than were the case not to be true.

Good, nothing is wrong with faith, just as long as it does not inhibit rational thinking.

To a degree of certainty only. Just because you can think of something, is not sufficient cause to believe that idea. Back it up with some data and will be less skeptical.

Agreed, my point is you can't rule them all out to be non-existant.

Are these theories non-secular? There might be a few fringe scientists still holding onto creation. Most hold the theory that space is infinite. As a collary to that time is infinite. No start, no end. Truth is not about what we prefer. It is abour what we can define through observation and deduction.

Most scientists? Prove it. Are you talking about the Plasma Theory here? The Big Bang is still in triumph and has not fallen. I fairly studied both theories and I find the Plasma Theory more appealing. You cannot prove time is infinite, you cannot prove space is infinite, you can only believe. So you do use the belief system yourself, correct?

Interesting, what kind of deductive logic are you refering to? Or you making false assertions?

The more logical term would be sedated. 90% of all people here in the US are religious. That can alter any polling that you try. Religious people are just as likely to commit crimes. From personal experience I have also found religious people more likely to beat their children. I think it comes from the same strict upbringing that led them to the church. People from either ilk are generally no less or more likely to be any given personality type.

Your point? I wasn't talking about all religious people, I was talking about spiritual people.

The entire problem does not lie in the religion, humans are ultimately to blame, they created the religons, they interpreted, and they folllowed.

I would argue that life means more to me because it is the one-shot game that we have observed. By what basis must we be labeled irresponsible. It has been my experience that assurances often lull people into such a state. Religion is the primary source of affirmation for most.

Great, I believe fully in individual responsibility.

Proof- it all depends on that. I don't know from what science texts you divined this ""magical poofing"" method, but I would guess from your limited knowledge concerning this subject you have not been near an updated versions.

You know what I meant Teg. I believe in evolution, not creationism. Nice try though (but if you don't understand, must I explain to you?).

That is true sometimes. Most theist do not hold these beliefs mainly because they have no knowledge of them. How many theist actually read their texts. Based on the average reading rates it is obvious that only those exposed to bible study or theistic classes have a high chance of doing so. That you realize that some of what your brothers assert is silly, is a good step.

Good, I'm glad that you see that.

This starting to sound more like a pledge of some kind. It started as a weird semblance of assertions and now has degradated into some corralary of the ten commandments.

How so, a pledge? Why don't you elaborate? You trying to discredit me here? You have not proved any of my assertions as false yet, all you have done was supererogate and gone awry on the subject of my statements.

Wow......I am with you 100%. Where did that pearl of knowledge come from?

If you were smart enough to catch the phrase I mentioned many times, "I believe in science fully." Then you would not need to superfluously ask that, nice try though

The first part is an accurate observation. I don'e exactly understand the point you are trying to make with the second part.

Religions teach good morals, you should be able to separate the bad from the good. All atheists do (from what I have seen) is only discredit and talk major shit about religion...I mean as Tiassa mentions, do they even understand what the religion is all about?

Look at the people that talk so much crap about America, do you know what America has done for the entire world?

Negativism gets you nowhere.

How exactly do you accomplish this? I guess our current president is the only example I have. Use that religion to collect support from constituents. Does it matter whether you believe/understand that religion.

Yes it matters if you do understand. The key to everything lies in understanding. Notice, I'm a non-denominational theist.

The word religion is a rejection of this idea. Religion is the passing of tradition, practices, and ideas from parent to child. That requires the imposition of these concepts.

Ok, just my post and analyze them, show me where I am logically handicapped compared to any atheist.

I'm a theist, yet a free-thinker also.

Thank You, and where's your proof for stating to me, "~The_Chosen~, thank you for a fine list of false assertions."

Explicitly state it and show me where, be direct..all you have done was go tangent from my statements, supererogate, you have not prove where any of my assertions are false.

Sorry but I like using this twit against atheists: How logical are you?

Have a nice day, I meant nothing offensive.

PS - I'm semi-stoned and buzzing from drinking...so if I did say anything offensive, insult me back.

 

[Teg]

How did you get from my simple statement to all this jargon?

Where from my statement did you get, "your generalization that atheism in general lacks logical basis for any working theory concerning theology is ignorance of a few facts"? Hmm...or did you just assume and extrapolate?

You defined atheism as negativism. From your use of the word "some" after atheism and before Negativism results in a generalization. You are stating that all atheists have this quality. If this was not your intention, you should have instead said: "Some atheists are also negativists." Of course I would contend that some theists are also selective negativists.

So you chose to believe the opposite, that they don't exist. I believe UFO's are a possibility, I'm not about to rule out with absolute certainty that they do not exist basing it upon my ignorance on the matter.

I said explicitly that I do not rule them out. I only went so far as to assign a low value of possibility to their existence.

Nope, but you can't say it's not true. You can only believe the opposite.

And my belief is based on math and logic. This is borne from an understanding of the nature of death. No measurable displacement after death means no reason to believe in any second form of existance.

Again, what religion are you opposing? I hope you do understand what my theism is all about.

I am opposed to any religion that follows a skeleton of deity and dogma. You spouted at least some dogma and stated belief in a deity.
You may not be Christian, but at least admit that an afterlife is a major promise of the majority of religions. The basis for this is the hierarchy of human fears. Death resides at the top and thus holds the most value. With such emotion given towards that subject I will always suggest that all approach any theories regarding any phenomena, periphery to normal burial and decomposition, with skepticism.

Good, nothing is wrong with faith, just as long as it does not inhibit rational thinking.

Ahhhh...but faith is the very definition of inhibited thinking. Faith assumes something to be true with no basis in proof. In most matters people need evidence before coming to a conclusion. That sounds to me the most reasonable course. If I closed my hand and told you I had a penny in it, would you believe me based upon my word? Remember the 100% that implies- no doubt. You might grant a probability to my statement. Based on my prior dealings with you, it might even be a high assessment of likeliness. None of this should erase the fact that I might be lying. Remember that your conclusion should not occur until after I reveal the contents of my hand.

Most scientists? Prove it. Are you talking about the Plasma Theory here? The Big Bang is still in triumph and has not fallen. I fairly studied both theories and I find the Plasma Theory more appealing. You cannot prove time is infinite, you cannot prove space is infinite, you can only believe. So you do use the belief system yourself, correct?

Interesting, what kind of deductive logic are you refering to? Or you making false assertions?

I am going to state some simple truths here; so stay with me.

1. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
3. The Big bang is the closest model we have to the last bit of history that we can measure.

The big bang is a more useful concept when it is understood as a part of a cycle or step in a system. We can never know what form the universe took before the incident. Because of rules #1 and #2, we must conclude that some existance did occur.

Also remember some rules about infinity. There is no conceivable end that is going to destroy all matter and energy. Therefore time and space will continue infinitely forward. Thusly it must also have gone the reverse also in infinitely.

There are no observable begginings or endings in nature. These are wholly human- invented concepts. It's just a lack of understanding.

If you were smart enough to catch the phrase I mentioned many times, "I believe in science fully." Then you would not need to superfluously ask that, nice try though

My understanding of science and the driving force behind the natural world did not jive with any words I heard in church as a child. They told freakish stories of people coming back from the dead.

As I understand, bible belt Christians also have difficulty accepting both. They outlawed evolution from being taught in the school system.

Yes it matters if you do understand. The key to everything lies in understanding. Notice, I'm a non-denominational theist.

I was being sarcastic. I probably understand more about religion than Bush. All he knows is the word "god" which he was probably fed by analysts in the first place.

Religions teach good morals, you should be able to separate the bad from the good. All atheists do (from what I have seen) is only discredit and talk major shit about religion...I mean as Tiassa mentions, do they even understand what the religion is all about?

Look at the people that talk so much crap about America, do you know what America has done for the entire world?

Negativism gets you nowhere.

I have my own code of honesty and abstenance from amoral behaviors. Do you really think that telling someone that killing is bad helps. Most are born with that wisdom. Only a government can overcome that instinct. Only the government is allowed to kill.

I can't really say anything against the U.S. considering it is the only country I have experienced. I have however noticed room for improvement. I also see a saturation of self- inflation.

Thank You, and where's your proof for stating to me, "~The_Chosen~, thank you for a fine list of false assertions."

Explicitly state it and show me where, be direct..all you have done was go tangent from my statements, supererogate, you have not prove where any of my assertions are false.

Sorry but I like using this twit against atheists: How logical are you?

From my perspective I fulfilled that requirement. The nature of these debates percludes anyone from admitting they are wrong. Therefore my target isn't you but rather someone with less to lose. I can only hope that the rationale of my arguments do so.

Full disclosure: you are just the punching bag against which I vent my frustration with the inequaties of life and the predominance of ignorance. Because I am a non-violent person I must have an outlet to let loose my anger with the practices of religion. Indoctrination, tithing, and that look of drugged bliss that accompany it are a good start. And then the garbage that is spewed and lapped up by so many loyal hounds irritates me.

I understand religion. Read enough bible, attend enough church, and if you have not yet been brainwashed you will have a good understanding. Round that off with some key insights by Frank Herbert in the Dune series and The Jesus Incident.

Have a nice day, I meant nothing offensive.

PS - I'm semi-stoned and buzzing from drinking...so if I did say anything offensive, insult me back.

While I can't condone the use of substance I will not say anything further. I am not one of hatred as it wholly illogical. Hatred much like the substances currently crawling in your mind has the clouding effect that hampers judgement. Surprisingly, however, nothing that you have said even remotely comes close to the backlash I expected. KalvinB makes you look like a model citizen.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Teg
You defined atheism as negativism. From your use of the word "some" after atheism and before Negativism results in a generalization. You are stating that all atheists have this quality. If this was not your intention, you should have instead said: "Some atheists are also negativists." Of course I would contend that some theists are also selective negativists.

All atheists are generally negativists. Negativism is a resistance, opposition to something, that something is theism. So I contend, all atheists are negativists.

I said explicitly that I do not rule them out. I only went so far as to assign a low value of possibility to their existence.

You said, "To the point I do not believe in alien contact either, which has more supporting evidence."

You don't believe in alien contact. But now you say you don't rule them out?

And my belief is based on math and logic. This is borne from an understanding of the nature of death. No measurable displacement after death means no reason to believe in any second form of existance.

I'm also a skeptic on the afterlife.

I am opposed to any religion that follows a skeleton of deity and dogma. You spouted at least some dogma and stated belief in a deity.

Yes, I did state a deity, but where is the dogma here? Explicitly show me and give your reasons. I am a free-thinking theist. I never mentioned any "rules" that one must follow.

You may not be Christian, but at least admit that an afterlife is a major promise of the majority of religions. The basis for this is the hierarchy of human fears. Death resides at the top and thus holds the most value. With such emotion given towards that subject I will always suggest that all approach any theories regarding any phenomena, periphery to normal burial and decomposition, with skepticism.

I do also regard with skepticism.

Ahhhh...but faith is the very definition of inhibited thinking. Faith assumes something to be true with no basis in proof. In most matters people need evidence before coming to a conclusion. That sounds to me the most reasonable course.

So if I believe in the Luminous Ether or Higgs Boson, that is inhibited thinking? Well? From imagination and beliefs, you may use to acquire knowledge.

I am going to state some simple truths here; so stay with me.

1. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
3. The Big bang is the closest model we have to the last bit of history that we can measure.

1. Matter can be created and destroyed
2. That is one of the 4 physics conservation laws.
3. I guess you could say that.

The big bang is a more useful concept when it is understood as a part of a cycle or step in a system. We can never know what form the universe took before the incident. Because of rules #1 and #2, we must conclude that some existance did occur.

I believe God is the beginning of all creation, whether through the Big Bang or Plasma Theories.

Also remember some rules about infinity. There is no conceivable end that is going to destroy all matter and energy. Therefore time and space will continue infinitely forward. Thusly it must also have gone the reverse also in infinitely.

You cannot extrapolate from known information, currently you are assuming that time and space will (you believe this) continue infinitely forward, then you conceive that the opposite must also be true.

Your logic is flawed, the Big Bang states that an instanton itself came to exist from literally nothing. The Big Bang creates space-time, our four dimensions, and matter. After the Planck Era, the energy of the young universe was dominated by a scalar field called an inflation field. This inflation generated a potential energy V inflaton. Then time passes leaving the inflation field at a local minimum and as the inflation rolls down to a new minimum, the excess energy is transformed into particles, thus we get matter, that would later form into baryons, leptons, quarks, and so on. But at the same time the universe expanded exponentially and this is basically the inflationary picture for the "creation" of matter. Then, mass and energy are conserved after this occurs by Einstein's general relativity.

There are no observable begginings or endings in nature. These are wholly human- invented concepts. It's just a lack of understanding.

But what is defined to be "beginning" or "endings"?

As I understand, bible belt Christians also have difficulty accepting both. They outlawed evolution from being taught in the school system.

It's foolish to reject the best working theory we have now.

From my perspective I fulfilled that requirement. The nature of these debates percludes anyone from admitting they are wrong. Therefore my target isn't you but rather someone with less to lose. I can only hope that the rationale of my arguments do so.

You asserted and I see no proof where my assertaions are false. Care to try again and be more concise?

Full disclosure: you are just the punching bag against which I vent my frustration with the inequaties of life and the predominance of ignorance. Because I am a non-violent person I must have an outlet to let loose my anger with the practices of religion. Indoctrination, tithing, and that look of drugged bliss that accompany it are a good start. And then the garbage that is spewed and lapped up by so many loyal hounds irritates me.

Point? What's it have to do with the discussion?

I understand religion. Read enough bible, attend enough church, and if you have not yet been brainwashed you will have a good understanding. Round that off with some key insights by Frank Herbert in the Dune series and The Jesus Incident.

Thanks, I understand your viewpoint more now.

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

All atheists are generally negativists. Negativism is a resistance, opposition to something, that something is theism. So I contend, all atheists are negativists.

With that logic, Theists are negativists because they resist Atheism

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
With that logic, Theists are negativists because they resist Atheism

No, theists do not anti-identify. If there exists no theists, there exists no atheists. Atheists depend on the theists for existence.

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~


No, theists do not anti-identify. If there exists no theists, there exists no atheists. Atheists depend on the theists for existence.

I beg to differ!

Although Athiesm would certainly not exist in its present state if it weren't for Theism, it would still exist.

Imagine this: There's a planet of aliens. They've never heard of God. Therefore, they can't believe in him. This makes them Atheists.

 

[Tinker683]

Hello Tinker683.

Hello, and welcome to Sciforums

How probable is it, do you think, for a person to be a free-thinking theist?

Very probable. Keep in mind, that the definition of "free-thinker" isa a person who forms opinions based on religion outside of dogma, tradition, or authority. Agnostics, such as The_Chosen, have shown that they can do this exactly and perfectly.

Given the totality of the human experience, including that which Secular Humanism rejects because it has yet to be explained scientifically, do you find Secular Humanism to be limiting or exclusionary?

Limiting, yes. Exclusionary? Possibly, but we have yet ot be shown in what way ( or rather, PROVEN to a certain way, as I'm sure many religionists would have a field day with such a statement )

We are limiting because we limit ourselves to the facts, and to what we can logically prove. If we are shown something diffrent, we will exaimine it as thoroughly as we have everything else we've tet to encounter.
If we are excluding anything, then Humanists always welcome suggestions and what-have-you to improve ourselves. If these claims or suggestions have no logical basis, then we don't see any reason to pursue said trains of thought.

Thanks so much for your contributions to this thread.

Your quite welcome. I was acually afraid that my debate with The_Chosen would have offended you, as you specifically asked not to do that. I'm glad to see that it hasn't.

As for now, I will watch over the current debate with The_Chosen and Teg and will add my thoughts when I feel I they would be appropriate.

 

[Tinker683]

With that logic, Theists are negativists because they resist Atheism

No, theists do not anti-identify. If there exists no theists, there exists no atheists. Atheists depend on the theists for existence.

I have to agree with GB-GIL Trans-global on this argument. Negativist is a very board statement in which to a paint a person, and implies a great deal many things. I would feel that a more accurate statement would be "athiests are negativists in reguard to theism" or something to that effect. ( I probably have just made an illogical blanket statement about athiests just now! :bugeye: )

Although Athiesm would certainly not exist in its present state if it weren't for Theism, it would still exist.

Imagine this: There's a planet of aliens. They've never heard of God. Therefore, they can't believe in him. This makes them Atheists.

And accurate definition. But one would have to ask, if theism never existed on said alien planet, would you call them "athiests" or a word never yet formed??

 

[~The_Chosen~]

There is a simple point to atheism

Originally posted by Tinker683
I have to agree with GB-GIL Trans-global on this argument. Negativist is a very board statement in which to a paint a person, and implies a great deal many things. I would feel that a more accurate statement would be "athiests are negativists in reguard to theism" or something to that effect. ( I probably have just made an illogical blanket statement about athiests just now! :bugeye: )

The entire point of atheism is to anti-identify. If someone interprets my statements wrongly, it's not my fault if they don't wish to clarify it any further.

And accurate definition. But one would have to ask, if theism never existed on said alien planet, would you call them "athiests" or a word never yet formed??

Agnostics would be the right word. GB-GIL Trans-global and other atheists love to broaden the definition of atheism and nearly suffocate the definition of agnostism, only to feel "better" about themselves.

You do know atheists are in constant anti-identification, that is why some atheists derogate and make blanket statements that theists are misguided...basing it on what? Their ignorance.

How do they know absolutely that all these claims are false? Joan of Arc, cases of possessions claimed by M. Scott Peck, etc. etc. It really doesn't get them anywhere, thus I dropped atheism like a bad habit.

btw, I'm not an agnostic, rather a special kind of theist.

 

[Teg]

All atheists are generally negativists. Negativism is a resistance, opposition to something, that something is theism. So I contend, all atheists are negativists.

As defined earlier negativity percludes logic. All my ideas are based on logic. In a way I am the opposite of negativists. I am one of those atheists and thus you are wrong. I am certain that even if your statement were ammended to most, you would still be wrong. Perhaps you missed the definition earlier in this post.

Just because you may not think my logic to be correct does not deny the fact that I used it. In any case you are wrong.

You said, "To the point I do not believe in alien contact either, which has more supporting evidence."

You don't believe in alien contact. But now you say you don't rule them out?

It all comes down to percentages. What if I told you that alien life might exist on Mars? You might be more inclined to believe me until I add the .00000000000001% probability after that statement.

I don't believe in past claims of alien contact because of the very small likelihood and the many leaps of faith required. To state an opinion is not to perclude the opposite. I am simply sticking with the higher chance. This isn't a case of 60/40. It's more like one of those decimal likelihoods. I avoid the word truth. That word serves no person in any scenario. For the purposes of any scrutinized statements I will always stick with percentages. My current favorite is the degree of certainty.

Within a high degree of certainty I know that aliens have yet to visit Earth in the last 500 million years. At least none that has survived and can be independently identified.

I'm also a skeptic on the afterlife.

Then you should probably reevaluate your use of the word theist to describe yourself. I can't think of a belief system to which an afterlife is not integral.

You agree with me on too many issues. Resolve who you are through a fun little test on Beliefnet.com at: http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html . It can tell you which religion you are most likely to identify with. Every so often Cris will roll out the faith test. I am a Secular Humanist: basically all the moral code but without the belief in a deity or prayer. It also gives you the next closest religion/creed. Mine was I believe Liberal Quaker, go figure!?

Yes, I did state a deity, but where is the dogma here? Explicitly show me and give your reasons. I am a free-thinking theist. I never mentioned any "rules" that one must follow.

So your belief at least includes a deity.

Like it or not "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.", is actually a command.

I would also like to bring up something you said earlier: "I rather be safe than sorry"

That sounds like Pascals wager creeping its head again. I can run off my mouth on that one again or just point you toward: http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/pascal.htm

So if I believe in the Luminous Ether or Higgs Boson, that is inhibited thinking? Well? From imagination and beliefs, you may use to acquire knowledge.

Imagination must also be rooted in observable fact. Einstein said that imagination was more important for the simple fact that collecting knowledge for knowledge sake is stupid. It's what we do with that information that seperates us from the other animals on this planet. It is actually more of a paradox. You can have knowledge without imagination, but it wouldn't matter much. You can have imagination without knowledge, but it also wouldn't matter much.

Matter can be created and destroyed

That is one of the 4 physics conservation laws.

I guess you could say that.

Conversion is not destruction. Nice try though. JamesR says clearly: "One of the fundamental laws of physics is that the net amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant."

Why he says matter can be destroyed is a bit of a puzzle to me. Does he mean that because we cannot see the energy it no longer exists? That is not what Einstein ment. Destruction from the physics/chemistry definition has the meaning a lack of continued existance. Conversion is something different.

Also remember that all the black hole theory in the world will likely remain that. I remember that Hawking took back everything he said about the existance of worm holes. For that matter we can't explain why galaxies are accelerating in their outward motion. Is it dark energy, some unknown property of the universe.

The molecular level has not yet revealed a way to destroy matter and no significant methods of doing the same to energy have yet to be found. Also remember that the society we live in would be very different if we could find an efficient means of converting matter into energy. Alas the core of the star is still the only place dense enough to produce this effect.

I believe God is the beginning of all creation, whether through the Big Bang or Plasma Theories.

Creation implies that no architecture of the universe existed before the big bang. You relented as much in stating that "no I still don't believe "nothing ---> something"). "

If the big bang was the result of a collapse, then the only force needed is gravity.

But what is defined to be "beginning" or "endings"?

In all of my experiences I have yet to find any examples of these terms. Perhaps you have such an example.

It's foolish to reject the best working theory we have now.

And yet that act was perpetrated by free-thinking theists as a collective effort statewide.

You asserted and I see no proof where my assertaions are false. Care to try again and be more concise?

That you failed to find my opposing assertions is laughable. That you do not agree is apparent.

Point? What's it have to do with the discussion?

What does your drugged status have to do with the discussion. Both define each of us as honest individuals. We have no other reason to disclose such information.

Thanks, I understand your viewpoint more now.

I am guessing that the use of a smiley face does not denote sarcasm. In as much I can say that whether it be the first church of more traditional roots that I was dragged to as a 4-6 year old or the Harvest church of that insidious "Crusader", Gregg Laury (I apolagize if I mispell his name as I have not seen it written in some time). I was somewhere near ten when I finally escaped. Though I did so much earlier than that with the aid of my gameboy device.

I don't see reason to pursue the idea of a deity. I have no use in dogma an ritual. I have no need for an afterlife.

When I die I will be broken down by decomposers and used as fuel for other life. Everything that makes me will stay in the system. You may say that consciousness will end, but I would disagree stating that instead we have inflated what it means to be conscious.

In my use of fiction I would argue that fiction often says more than any book of facts about human beings. Works like Contact, 2001: a space Odyssey, and David Copperfield are instead what define us. The story is always what endures.