No God???

Originally posted by SnakeLord

Of course how quickly will a highly religious christian refute any chances of the sumerians being right? How quickly do people refute the existence of alien beings, or many of the other unexplained phenomenon in this world? How many of you deny the existence of creatures such as bigfoot, loch ness monster, (and his cousins), mothmen, banshees, face on mars etc etc.
Click to expand...

Ahh you've reminded me of a relevant quote!

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-- Stephen Roberts
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Mystech
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-- Stephen Roberts
Click to expand...


ohhhhhh!

I like THAT one!!
 
Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
People like me......right.

The reason for this original post, was due to being a inquisitor of Religon, and I have logically sought my way through the jumbles, and problems of it all.

When I was pondereing the existence of God, I tried to really think about why it was necessary for his existence, how it could be possible, and what proof there was for it.

Here's a summation of it...

Q1: If God exists who created Him, and what proof is there of His existence?

Nothing needs to create God, because he is the Given Absolute/Axiom that is simply assumed to exist. There is no proof that 1+1=2 exists, yet it is ASSUMED that 1+1=2. But if I have no proof that 1+1=2, then....i guess....it must not equal 2......

Q2: Why do we need a God?

Becuase there is no explanation for our existence, the universe's existence, nor is there any explanation for why our universe has order, and why there are laws of which all things abide by.

Q3: How could it be possible??

If stating something's existence based on assumption is not possible, then LOGIC itself is not possible.
Click to expand...

So you are trying to tell us that having knowledge is impossable, and yet are completely blind to the fact that in so doing you are professing knowledge?

Ayn Rand wrote a few books about you, you know :p
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
why are the people here turning their attention once again to the bible when the answer is in their butt.

One of the main arguments was that the human being was designed so wonderfully. It turns out to be a lie. Why bother to refute the rest?

case closed?
Click to expand...

Oh come on now, you're just pulling that argument out of your ass!

(haha, sorry I couldn't resist)
 
I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. There doesn't need to be evidence against God, the fact that there is none for him, is proof enough.

You claim that this is not a logical idea, yet this is one of the foundations of critical thinking, please explain how you mean this.

And by the way your #3 is encompassed within #2, it's redundant.
Click to expand...

I am talking about a different GOD. There are two GODs. The first one is the intelligent power behind our creation whatever this power is. The second one is the GOD that people warship. People extract the second one from the first one, or in other words they conclude that the first one must be the second , THE GOD.

Now you can logically deny the second one but you can not deny the first one. So you would be logically mistaken if you deny the first one, and I would be logically mistaken If I claim any proof or even part of a proof on the existence of the second one.

at last, Points#1and #2 are encompassed? No. I only wanted to differentiate between those who are logical and those who think they are logical!!!
 
I refuse to believe that god controls everything. becouse if he does and he controls me then it is his fault that I do not choose to serve him.
flamethrower.gif
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
not really...agnostics are afraid that they might be wrong...
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are saying here...

So having faith in something that has not been (and will not likely be) proven either way is more logical because it feels more secure?
 
i don't know about that-....

it is best to be an observer and make limited conclusions from that...

the existence of god seems to go against every observation i ever made and therefore i do not see the need to adopt the agnostic viewpoint...
 
There was a thread about the logical consistency of the Atheist/Agnostic/Theistic points of view.

It was started in Free Thoughts so it got pretty much ignored.

I posted my point of view on the logical reasoning behind Agnostisicm there.

This Thread
 
Originally posted by one_raven
There was a thread about the logical consistency of the Atheist/Agnostic/Theistic points of view.

It was started in Free Thoughts so it got pretty much ignored.

I posted my point of view on the logical reasoning behind Agnostisicm there.

This Thread
Click to expand...

yes i saw it...didn't agree...couldn't be bothered to respond to it, because it was too long...care to give your most important point.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
yes i saw it...didn't agree...couldn't be bothered to respond to it, because it was too long...care to give your most important point.
Click to expand...

The original post was very long.

My reply wasn't all that long...
I think it is logical in many (but not all) cases.
Many agnostics chose this position de facto.
They simply abstain from casting a ballot pending further proof.

If someone were to ask you if the solution they have to a complex mathematical equation is correct, and you do not have the knowledge of how to solve that problem for yourself, the only logical and honest thing you could do would be either tell them you do not know, or tell them you do not know YET, but will give them an answer once you learn how to solve the equation for yourself.

Once you learn how to solve the equation for yourself, you can then solve it.
Then and ONLY then would you be qualified to tell the person if their solution agrees with the solution that YOU came to.
Granted, your solution may not be correct, but you did not come to it by hazzarding a guess or by unscientific means.

In MY opinion, that would be the ONLY logical route to take.

I am agnostic partly (or possibly mainly, depending on when you ask me) because of the simple fact that it doesn't matter.

If someone proved to me scientifically beyond doubt tomorrow (or just convinced be to believe) that God either was real or was not, it would not change my life or my bahavior significanly in any way.

It would not change who I am.
It would not change my moral and social beliefs.
I would still be me.

I will fully admit that I am curious, but it is no more than that.
One of countless curisoities I have about insignificant questions.
Click to expand...
 
'They simply abstain from casting a ballot pending further proof. '

and this seems like a stupid postion to me, since there is and never been evidence for a god. Why bother to build in the possibilty of a god other than to cave in to the human fear and insecurity that things might be true because a large group of people says it is true.

that is just social pressure we are dealing with, not reality.
 
one_raven,

If it is "unperceivable" how do you know?
Click to expand...

From my post: To find God, one must become conscious of his/her spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one that usually helps with that.
Click to expand...
I became conscious of it, of course, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about it. :eek:
 
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I became conscious of it, of course, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about it.
Click to expand...
If you became concious of it, then it is obviously not unpercievable.
 
Posted by Persol: If you became concious of it, then it is obviously not unpercievable.
Click to expand...
He is not perceivable in a natural manner. It is not that He can't be perceived, it is just that you have to seek Him first in order to find Him.
 
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
He is not perceivable in a natural manner. It is not that He can't be perceived, it is just that you have to seek Him first in order to find Him.
Click to expand...

Can you please try to elaborate on that in a less vague and obscure manner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top