Faith is Faith, no matter what you think is true

[superluminal]

Calm down.... you seem to be getting very worked up..

I know this frusterates you but there is no need to get upset.

Handle others rebuttles lightly.

If you can't, then there's no reason to have an intellient conversation.

"ATHIESTS ARE NOT IDIOTS!!! BLAAAAAAAH!!!"

Do you even realize how you sound? I can see why you have that avatar of yours.

Of course that's why I have that avatar. I find that responding to blatant idiocy such as those last two posts I responded to can open up a more productive discussion.

 

[Regulus]

No it can't, because it just makes you blantely idiotic to respond in that manner.

I will not debate this on you. First of all I don't give a damn what the definition on athiests is, if you can't come up with a logical explanation of how the Universe came to be by chance, then your relying on faith. Becuz even if the idea of God seems contradictable the idea of a Universe creating itself is just as contradictable.

Thus your relying on nothing but the faith when saying you KNOW there is no God, without a reason other than these blatent questions like "How can he do anything?".

Stop beating around the bush! And offer a logical explanation.

Stop calling everyone else idiots when you make yourself look like one with no rebuttle. I'm sick of people beating around the bush. "well you can't evidentaly say there's God, there's no evidence!" I NEVER DID. "Athiests don't rely on faith" WHY? "SHUT UP YOU IDIOT!"

Stop beating around the bush! otherwise i have no reason to even debate this subject with you.

 

[superluminal]

I will not debate this on you. First of all I don't give a damn what the definition on athiests is, if you can't come up with a logical explanation of how the Universe came to be by chance, then your relying on faith. Becuz even if the idea of God seems contradictable the idea of a Universe creating itself is just as contradictable.

Thus your relying on nothing but the faith in your KNOWING there is no God.

Stop beating around the bush! And offer a logical explanation.

Stop calling everyone else idiots when you make yourself look like one with no rebuttle. I'm sick of people beating around the bush. "well you can't evidentaly say there's God" I NEVER DID. "Athiests don't rely on faith" WHY? "SHUT UP YOU IDIOT!"

Stop beating around the bush! otherwise i have no reason to even debate this subject with you.

Wow.

1) No scientist invokes chance when discussing the state of the universe. They do discuss the very deterministic way that it evolved from a hot, dense spacetime to what we see today.

2) No scientist says anything about the origin of the universe prior to the instant of the violent expansion known as the Big Bang.

3) The Big Bang is supported by abundant evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it.

4) Most atheists will NOT say that there is absolutely no god, unless frustrated by the ravings of ignorant theists. They will almost all say, there is no credible evidence for a god, and plenty for a purely naturalistic explanation of the cosmos, therefore belief in a god would be irrational.

5) I've been debating this with idiots for 4000+ posts now. I well know the characteristics of a feeble-minded idiot when I read one.

6) Your posts, while not completely putting you in the idiot category (yet) clearly demonstrate that you are making uninformed statements about atheists and our current understanding of the universe.

 

[Regulus]

1) No scientist invokes chance when discussing the state of the universe. They do discuss the very deterministic way that it evolved from a hot, dense spacetime to what we see today.

That still doesn't explain how that hot, dense spacetime has eventuated.

2) No scientist says anything about the origin of the universe prior to the instant of the violent expansion known as the Big Bang.

Maybe so, but the big bang doesn't answer it's own question about the big bang in itself began.

3) The Big Bang is supported by abundant evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it.

That still doesn't answer it's own eventuality. The Big Bang might exist, but that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.

4) Most atheists will NOT say that there is absolutely no god, unless frustrated by the ravings of ignorant theists. They will almost all say, there is no credible evidence for a god, and plenty for a purely naturalistic explanation of the cosmos, therefore belief in a god would be irrational.

There's no naturalistic explanation for chance, the as far as we know there's no evidence of it in this Universe. What's natural about chance?

5) I've been debating this with idiots for 4000+ posts now. I well know the characteristics of a feeble-minded idiot when I read one.

Ahh more slander. Your really getting your point across. I'm baffled.
Your really making progress with being so crude.

6) Your posts, while not completely putting you in the idiot category (yet) clearly demonstrate that you are making uninformed statements about atheists and our current understanding of the universe.

Really, you have a reasonable explanation of how chance is natural? Care to explain?

 

[superluminal]

That still doesn't explain how that hot, dense spacetime has eventuated.

Maybe so, but the big bang doesn't answer it's own question about the big bang in itself began.

That still doesn't answer it's own eventuality. The Big Bang might exist, but that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.

There's no naturalistic explanation for chance, the as far as we know there's no evidence of it in this Universe. What's natural about chance?

Ahh more slander. Your really getting your point across. I'm baffled.
Your really making progress with being so crude.

Really, you have a reasonable explanation of how chance is natural? Care to explain?

Ok. I'm sorry. My bad. I will leave you alone. Have a nice time here on sciforums.

 

[Oli]

Sorry about the delay - my connection lost sight of this forum for some reason.

when chance in itself has been given no evidence to exist.

You mean you have evidence that chance doesn't exist? What about coin tosses? What about Schroedinger's cat and subatomic decay?

Maybe so, but the big bang doesn't answer it's own question about the big bang in itself began.

Of course not, but not so many years back science wasn't even that close to an answer. The limits are being pushed back all the time.

but that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.

It's not about proving atheism true as such, so much as asking why there should be belief in god when there's no evidence for god. Atheism says "I will not believe something for which there is no evidence" it's not a true/ false thing, it's a simple statement. Why should I accept that there is god when there is nothing (apart from a very old book) that says there is?

 

[Regulus]

And I am sorry for the misconception Athiesm.

I'll do the same and leave you alone. Thankyou for the welcome SuperLiminal.

 

[Regulus]

You mean you have evidence that chance doesn't exist? What about coin tosses? What about Schroedinger's cat and subatomic decay?[/qupte]All a nature in itself. There's nature in everything, even if we haven't explained it yet. There's nature behind subatomic decay. Coin tosses, simple, physics.

[qupte]Of course not, but not so many years back science wasn't even that close to an answer. The limits are being pushed back all the time.[/qupte] There will never be a definite answer. We can't go back for an infinity and just discover the origin.

It's not about proving atheism true as such, so much as asking why there should be belief in god when there's no evidence for god. Atheism says "I will not believe something for which there is no evidence" it's not a true/ false thing, it's a simple statement. Why should I accept that there is god when there is nothing (apart from a very old book) that says there is?

Alright, common misconception, I apologize. Good point.

 

[scorpius]

As a skeptic, I find this to be a problem with how everyone seems to point out how God must not exist because there is no 'proof.'

and WHY should we believe in gods if we dont see,feel or can detect any with our senses?

Well I challenge you to 'prove' anything. Just because you can see or experience something doesn't mean it actually exists.

how about if I whack you over the head with a rock,will that be proof enough that it exists?

Just because you can't see or experience something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

ok so maybe dog exists,but does it affect or interferes in our lifes in any way,or do we have a free will to live the way we want?

 

[scorpius]

I challenge you to disprove God is real then. Time and time again I hear athiests asking me or another believer to prove God is real, how about disproving God.

been done millions of times already read the past treads

In the end Athiests and thiests alike rely on faith.

bulshit,atheists rely on their senses,and our knowledge we need no faith to know that a chair exists we can SEE it and FEEL it.

Athiests generally use the common contradictory statement on God,

do they???

but again, if the beings complexity is infinite, understanding it fully is impossible, thus it can still do anything, and everything, and be everything at anytime.

now who is being contradictory here???
only thing contradictory is your god and your silly book full of buffalo manure
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

I am generally a believer, but I base it off of things that seem utterly super natural. Things that cannot be explained scientifically.

please do tell about some SUPERNATURAL things you have personaly SEEN??
no BS he said she said storys please.

 

[Cris]

Regulus,

Welcome to sciforums, although with some 100+ posts already I’m a bit late with the welcome.

That still doesn't explain how that hot, dense spacetime has eventuated.

BB theory is currently broken and there is a strong contingent arising again in favor for alternative steady state theories.

If the BB was true then there are plenty of multi-verse and cyclic theories that overcome the apparent problem of how it began, i.e. there wasn’t a beginning.

that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.

Atheism isn’t an assertion, questions of its truth or fallacy make no sense.

There's no naturalistic explanation for chance, the as far as we know there's no evidence of it in this Universe. What's natural about chance?

I strongly recommend you read some material on evolution to understand why your assertions about chance are significantly uninformed. Most seasoned debaters here understand these mistakes only too well. Some will naturally become frustrated at a beginner such as yourself.

Try www.talkorigins.org for a starter.

 

[Regulus]

I'm not really a Christian, though you 2 assume me to be one. I do not deny the theory on evolution Cris, and Scorpius, I do not read the Bible.

I do not believen Adam and Eve, or the theory on Creation. Though I do sound like I am Christian, I assure you I am not. When I am talking about chance I am talking about the Big Bang happening on it's own.... incase you were both confused....

I do not deny the Big Bang, only that it can happen on it's own. Even with cyclicality, it can't, becuz the cyclicality in itself couldn't have eventuated by itself, becuz even that needs a cause on how it can be cyclical, though no beginning.

That's what I was saying. I'm not a "let there be light" bible goer.

My statements aren't Christian I swear.

But I am sick of having to repeat myself, and explain myself. We can beat around the bush all day long, but I know what I am talking about here. My arms hurt, and I tire of having to explain this time and time again.

I am not agreeing with some philosopher or biblical statement, it's something different, but I am sick of explaining it. If your misinterpreting what I am trying to explain to you, I am sorry, but I know what I am talking about here.

 

[DJ Erock]

Because the chair has characteristics that are agreed upon by all observers - it has four legs, is made of wood etc. It has measurable properties that remain the same no matter who is doing the measuring or when - length, width, mass etc. If you leave the room and I move it, then I leave the room and tell you where it is you will find it there; or even if I don't tell you, you will see where it is and and your observation would exactly match my memory - its "existence" does not depend upon any particular viewpoint. The chair can directly interact with us and other real objects - we can't place it exactly in the middle of the dining room because the table (another real object) is there. Etc, etc.
How many of those apply to god?

So does this mean that hundreds of years ago the earth was actually flat? It had characteristics that were agreed on by all observers, they all agreed it was flat.
If everyone agrees that 2 and 2 is 5, that doesn't make them correct.


I would suggest you all read this, Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's not very long, and fairly easy to understand. It makes the idea that I'm trying to convey a little easier to grasp. Once you understand that people know nothing for certian, then you'll see why I ask people how they can doubt God, but not everything else.

Scorpius,

I'm not asking you to believe in God, I'm asking you not to believe in anything.


Superluminal,

I don't know if you will come back and check this thread again since you said you would leave, but if you do, I want to thank you for leaving. You are a dick

 

[Regulus]

And as for you Scorpius, offer more words then bullshit. and the same old arguements, "we don't have faith, we feel"

Feel what, the moment before the big bang? Good arguement. Your really intelligent, do me a favor and don't preach to me the same curmudgeon bullshit from now on. You repeat the same shit with no logic behind it.

Like I said, I won't explain anymore. Take what you got from the arguement and do what you want.

I would suggest you all read this, Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's not very long, and fairly easy to understand. It makes the idea that I'm trying to convey a little easier to grasp. Once you understand that people know nothing for certian, then you'll see why I ask people how they can doubt God, but not everything else.

I don't doubt God's existance. I agree with you that God exists. Don't put me in that catagory.

 

[Cris]

Regulus,

I do not deny the Big Bang, only that it can happen on it's own. Even with cyclicality, it can't, becuz the cyclicality in itself couldn't have eventuated by itself, becuz even that needs a cause on how it can be cyclical, though no beginning.

Why can't the universe be in an infinite cycle, that never had a beginning?

My personal perspective now is that big bangs do not and have not occured and that plasma theory seems like a more plausible explanstion for the way the universe is the way it is, i.e. it is a steady state infinite entity.

 

[KennyJC]

So does this mean that hundreds of years ago the earth was actually flat? It had characteristics that were agreed on by all observers, they all agreed it was flat.
If everyone agrees that 2 and 2 is 5, that doesn't make them correct.

Sure, science is progressive, and will keep on learning. Just because it hasn't (or may never) find proof of 'God' is no reason alone to believe in God.

 

[DJ Erock]

Whoa Regulus,
I don't believe that God exists, did I say something that lead you to think that? However, I don't believe that God doesn't exist either. I know its a tricky situation, but the only thing I really believe is that people don't know anything for certian.

KennyJC,
Correct, and just because science hasn't (or may never) find proof of 'God' is no reason alone not to believe in God either

 

[charles cure]

It's the same thing with athiests.

They claim the Universe and everything eventuated from chance, when chance in itself has been given no evidence to exist

that's where you misunderstand. as an atheist, i have no belief in god, or adherence to organized religion, nothing else. look up the word atheist in the dictionary, it doesn't mean someone who believes in the non-existence of god. it means someone who refuses the assertion that god exists without offering any counterassertion. some athesits undoubtedly believe that god does not exist, but that belief is seperate from atheism.

and you would be hard pressed to find any collective atheistic claims, considering that they are not an organized body or association that publishes articles or teachings or makes claims. i believe some scientists or philosophers may make the claim that the universe was created through a chance occurence, but that is a different group of people altogether from atheists.

Not even something as bullet proof as infinite causality can justify everythings eventuality, because that in itself cannot just BE, on the eventuality of chance. Thus that in itself is a paradoxal view on everythings eventuality.

This is why I say that athiests and thiests alike rely on faith.

i'm gonna go ahead and say that that statement pretty much makes no sense at all.

We're both saying it can be this way because it is IS this way. In the end, all we can do is wait for death to get the answers. Unless there is no afterlife, then we will never find out.

The only way I account my belief on this other then intelligent design, is the experiences I witness. Other than that I have nothing.

In the end, both thiests and athiests rely on a certain level of faith.

not true, you're really hung up on the idea of atheism as a religion. its not, you will have to come to terms with that eventually. science is a method developed by humans to measure and explain reality. it is what we have relied on for thousands of years of human development, and when done correctly, it has yet to fail us. i would much rather rely on that to provide me with answers about the nature of the creation of the world and the possibility of an afterlife as opposed to a set of myths that have been summarily abused for political ends,debunked and partially disproven over and over again throughout the last 2,000 years.

and in addition to that, i rely on my experiences as well. unfortunately for me, i guess i'm not "ready" to see god's plan, so it hasn't been revealed to me. in which case i would say that that makes god cruel and unfair considering that no one, myself or anybody else, knows exactly how to go about asking for or attempting to acquire an understanding of this vision. it is just randomly bestowed on you apparently.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,
Correct, and just because science hasn't (or may never) find proof of 'God' is no reason alone not to believe in God either

So you think they are both equals? When I read what every theist and every organised religion says about this sky fairy, I can not regard a beleif in God equal to that of non-belief.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

As a skeptic, I find this to be a problem with how everyone seems to point out how God must not exist because there is no 'proof.' Well I challenge you to 'prove' anything.

A chair exists. I can produce an instance of it that has a relationship with reality.

Just because you can see or experience something doesn't mean it actually exists. Just because you can't see or experience something doesn't mean it doesn't

Quite correct. This is why you test that *something* against reality.