random thoughts for atheists/agnostics

S

SwedishFish

Conspirator
Registered Senior Member
for starters, i suppose i'd be in the agnostic category since i recognize that there's no way we could know the nature of the universe so anything goes. aside from that, i have my own interpretation that does not involve a big old dude shaking his finger at his "creation".

moving along.....

when i've heard atheism argued it always seems to be based on sets of premises from the dominant religions, especially christianity. it's almost always someone debunking the premises using logic. very good logic mind you. using this ultra-perfect logic, it is proven that there can not possibly be a god. but what if there is a new set of premises? premises not considered or those constructed in such a way that they cannot be disproven. then it becomes faith, no?

somebody help me out because i once said "how can you know what's what?" to an atheist and he shot me down saying that's bad logic. (hmmm, i got an A in logic)
 
yeah well any athiest who claims to have logical proof of the nonexistance of ANY sort of god is thinking very wishfully.

I'm sure you've notticed that most arguements around here about the existance of a god are really aguments about Christianity. Atheist try to dedunk christianity(not hard) and christians try to debunk atheist. both sides all the while thinking that disproving one of many possible theories somehow proves theirs.

it's alot easier to prove the nonexistance about a god if you take a popular definition of God, say the christian one, and then go after that. no one really ever considers alternate possible definitions of a god like thing. it would be too much because then poeple would argue over the derinition and then you couldn't really disprove every single defenition.
 
the concept of god/universe i have in mind is the most ancient one. the belief that a godly power or essense of the universe exists in nature. can someone disprove that there is no conscious purpose in nature?

p.s. i believe that there is a kind of non-randomness in natural processes. i have no proof but prove me wrong.
 
Originally posted by SwedishFish
the concept of god/universe i have in mind is the most ancient one. the belief that a godly power or essense of the universe exists in nature. can someone disprove that there is no conscious purpose in nature?
Click to expand...
This would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove. Rather, there is no evidence it suggest that there is a conscious purpose in nature. So believing that there is requires faith.
 
dude, the logic everyone claims to be superior to anything, is a flaw. alot of stuff used to be logical back along time ago, but now its considered stupid. lol watch in 100 years they'll talk about us and say were pretty wierd to believe in certain kind of things.
 
Originally posted by edgar
lol watch in 100 years they'll talk about us and say were pretty wierd to believe in certain kind of things.
Click to expand...
Christianity being at the top of their list.

I agree with whats been said. Few atheists would say there is *definately* no force in charge of the universe, they would only say its unlikely.
Now the bible god is a different story, an absolute joke, it just wreaks of made up and defies logic in every sense. It contradicts nature and is a totally ridiculous concept.
Anyone with a rational mind can tell themself that they are 100% certain the bible is a complete load of crap.

I don't think any human in history really has any idea what the universe is all about, and we never will.
 
Originally posted by SwedishFish
but what if there is a new set of premises? premises not considered or those constructed in such a way that they cannot be disproven. then it becomes faith, no?
Click to expand...
There are indeed definitions of God that are not disprovable, however, they are generally so vague or broad that it becomes very difficult or impossible to postulate anything further. Of course, Tiassa would probably say that is the point, indeed, I tend to agree with him. (Pardon my presumption Tiassa, please correct me if I am wrong.) Assuming God, I find assertions of knowledge regarding 'him' to be pure hubris, "God exists" becomes the primary and perhaps only assertion the rest is presumption or relative interpretation. As far as that goes, I find it acceptable; so much so that I have difficulty strictly categorizing my theistic belief (although I tend to operate under the presumption of Atheism).

somebody help me out because i once said "how can you know what's what?" to an atheist and he shot me down saying that's bad logic
Click to expand...
Can you give more detail? I'm not really finding enough here to go on.

~Raithere
 
basically i asked how he can possibly know there is no god. not that i necessarily think there is, i'm just curious how he's so positive. my argument is that we can't know so it is reasonable to believe anything as long as the right premises are in place...(god can't be understood by the human mind, for example).
 
Originally posted by SwedishFish
my argument is that we can't know so it is reasonable to believe anything as long as the right premises are in place
Click to expand...

That is not a good reason to believe in something that is outside the realm of natural science and knowledge.

ZERO MASS
 
But obviously the only reason we have a the word god or concept is because some PERSON came up with the idea. They also came up with the idea that no person can understand.
This means it is more than likely that one in any of the senses we have imagined doesn't exist.
 
swedishfish,
There are many systems which can be developed with premises that make the conclusion logical. However, it should set a flag off when the premises don't seem to be proveable, likely, or the result rather then the cause. God arguments generally start out with the conclusion (god exists), and develops premises to meet that conclusion. If you can replace all mention of 'God' with 'pink unicorn' and still have the proof follow, then another flag should go off that the argument is probably using circular premises/conclusions.

Edgar,
dude, the logic everyone claims to be superior to anything, is a flaw. alot of stuff used to be logical back along time ago, but now its considered stupid. lol watch in 100 years they'll talk about us and say were pretty wierd to believe in certain kind of things.
As I've mentioned to you before, people say the same thing about past religions. The difference is that logic is a tool to look for the truth, and accepts that the premises of the time may be false. Religion claims to BE the truth, and will not accept any of it's teachings being shown to be false.
 
Atheist...(this forum is crawling with them)use the same mindset to shoot down the concept of god as that of a religious fanatic ; they both utterly believe in their POV that even the mere sign of adversity to that thought sends them into a defensive spiral. Have you ever seen Atheists here pounce and rip apart a religious follower with barage of logic and show of brilliance with wide array of real facts and dizzying hard logic like swedishfish mentioned and as amusing as that is but when a religious follower (this forum is crawling with them) tries to do the same that fellow sciforumer becomes an outsider and gets flamed as a blind fanatic. So at one point of another i have seen the atheists logic become their faith at this forum. Both sides phrase things in generalized form so that a a chance of being disproven seems unlikely......i guess they scared of facing up to dissonance ehh:D
 
Strong Atheism

Originally posted by SwedishFish
basically i asked how he can possibly know there is no god. not that i necessarily think there is, i'm just curious how he's so positive. my argument is that we can't know so it is reasonable to believe anything as long as the right premises are in place...(god can't be understood by the human mind, for example).
Click to expand...
I don't believe that one can state unequivocally that God does not exist. The closest I can get to that position are various arguments against specific definitions or declared attributes of God. The problem, IMO, then becomes the validity of any definition of God when God is merely defined by what it is not.

However, it does not follow that because an argument is not falsifiable that it is true; lack of disproof is not proof. But such a position is superior than believing in something that is contrary to evidence or logic. What it comes down to at this juncture is simply an assumption or a leap of faith which is generally believed because of its emotive value or for expediency. At some point, excepting existentialism, we are all reduced to some such assumptions. As far as it goes, this is fine but the application of Occam's Razor can help to further reduce the number of extraneous assumptions, hopefully leaving us with as few as possible.

~Raithere
 
God does exist

things cannot materilize before us...and creatures cannot make themselves...and all these bull about evolution...well i cant see a scientist or anyone in tat matter bringing a dead man back to life...give them back that beating of the heart that they have lost. Bring it back to them. Can anyone do that...no one can...this point proves that God does exist and it is he that controls everything around here. Becuz the theory of creation cannot be explained without a creator.
 
things cannot materilize before us...
Click to expand...
But you believe that God just 'appeared', and then the universe just 'appeared'. You're contradicting yourself.

and creatures cannot make themselves...and all these bull about evolution...
Click to expand...
From this sentence, I can tell that you know jack-shit about evolution.

well i cant see a scientist or anyone in tat matter bringing a dead man back to life...give them back that beating of the heart that they have lost. it back to them. Can anyone do that...no one can...
Click to expand...
Where have you been for the last 200 years? Ever heard of CPR or mouth to mouth resusitation? (bad spelling). You don't even have to be a doctor to restart someone's heart. Think again, you retard.

this point proves that God does exist and it is he that controls everything around here. Becuz the theory of creation cannot be explained without a creator.
Click to expand...
The only thing you have proven is that you are a moron who makes many typo errors and has extremely bad grammar.
 
Re: God does exist

Originally posted by majed
well i cant see a scientist or anyone in tat matter bringing a dead man back to life...give them back that beating of the heart that they have lost. Bring it back to them. Can anyone do that...no one can...this point proves that God does exist and it is he that controls everything around here.
Click to expand...


Well god doesn't seem to do that either. Your logic in explaining god is rather messed up. How does that fact that no one can bring heart beat back into a once living being prove god?...There is no evidence for god and nothing against his not existing. God if he/she existed seems to allow us free will to do whatever we want...so he is just as much question of what you blame the scientists for;)
 
Actually the proper term for an atheist is when you ARE 100% certain god does not exist,thats what it means to be an atheist.

Id say 90% of atheist's are like me agnostic.

I can say im 80% sure theres no god and be an agnostic,in fact 99% sure theres no god still makes you agnostic.

Agnostic is the way to go,you can still argue,use logic or whatever to debunk the idea of god,but untill you are personally sure i find it difficult to give yourself the label atheist.

I dont like puritan atheism,its just as bad as being religous(well not that bad but close;
i.e believing something 100% without proof one way or another.
 
Ok heres a wild theory of creation:

In the far future man build's a sentient intelligent computer system,the computer system helps us out with many things,helps us get close to light speed travel,shows us how to warp space,bend time and get out and back in no time at all.

So time passes,we got teleportation,outerspace time travel and many other things,millions of years pass and the sentient AI computer system is bigger,bout the size of a planet.

Eventually this universe is dying,the computer system dont wanna be alone and realises it cannot survive this way when the universe is gonna collapse,so just before the universe turns to shit it warps space and time and decides to recreate the big bang as it has the ability to do it,it is god.
What it forgot to calculate is the fact that recreating the big bang like this actually means that THIS big bang and how we are alive now is due to an AI computer system in the future.

A self creating universe due to a time loop,forever to repeat itself.

Bit ironic,but you probably understand what i mean.

Well make good sci-fi but its no more stupid than the god idea of christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top