Rise Of Atheism

[Sarkus]

Just because you have no answer to my questions?

There is no question to answer when the analysis that leads to it is flawed.
First correct the analysis, then re-raise the question, if it is still applicable.

When did I say the same?

"Also inspite of 'B' being true you just can't handle the fact because it goes against your belief."
If I misunderstood the connotation of this statement I apologise.

And its "prerogative"... Go get a dictionary & then start arguing & blaming.

When I start criticising people about spelling then I will expect it from others, not before! I suggest you stop being such a pedant and concentrate on the argument being given rather than the spelling.

 

[yank]

Then that is your mistake.
I suggest you read more and don't make such sweeping generalisations.

Alright the Christian God is stronger than the Hindu God? LOL
Haven't you heard that God is everywhere & God is one?
I suggest you check for your sources from where you make such arguments!

Obliterated? How?
But yes, the chain could go on & on.

The chain could go on & on until God is like in the 7,989,124,343,232,229th position which would render it very weak and incapable of comparison with the authority at the top. And in this way it could be reduced to nothingness.

Ok - then you are now starting to limit the type of God that you are referring to.
And please, do show me how you can possibly know that God, if one exists, resides exclusively inside of logic.

You mean to say that God is everything & anything. Isn't it equivalent to not having any answer to the arguments raised and yet trying to cover it up by adding more & more attributed to it as the thread progresses?

Meaningless in the context of advancing our understanding of the nature of things.

Advancing our understanding of the nature of things isn't meaningless, its beneficial & very meaningful.

Without evidence to the contrary, all things could exist.
So God is a possibility.
As are an infinite other things for which there is no evidence at all. None of them can be disproven unless they are logically inconsistent within what we accept as the logic of this universe. But then they could exist OUTSIDE of our universe, where anything could hold true.

So Santa Claus & bigfoot along with the tooth-fairy could possibly exist outside the known universe of logics?

To believe any of those things actually do exist, as people do with God, is illogical.

For example - there could be a planet, somewhere in the Universe, where the land-masses have formed to spell the name SARKUS, and on this planet live 1 billion people, all worshipping a God that they have called SARKUS.

Do you agree that it is a possibility, however remote?
Is it illogical? No.

Do I believe it? No - of course not - as there is no evidence.
It would be illogical to have the belief.

Do not confuse the possibility of something occurring with the actual thing occurring.

That's what I'm trying to tell you... Don't confuse the possiblity of something occuring with the actual thing occuring.

 

[yank]

There is no question to answer when the analysis that leads to it is flawed.
First correct the analysis, then re-raise the question, if it is still applicable.

If you still don't want to believe what may indeed be the truth but goes against your conscience, then I can't help you.

If I misunderstood the connotation of this statement I apologise.

Apologising doesn't suit Sarkus... you are better off using the words which might offend others.
Anyway what I meant was you say 'B' is false & I say 'B' is true...

When I start criticising people about spelling then I will expect it from others, not before! I suggest you stop being such a pedant and concentrate on the argument being given rather than the spelling.

I am concentrating on the argument. But if a person makes such simple mistakes while typing just shows s/he's so hasty to post here - just to get his point straight by any means whatever!

 

[phlogistician]

If there is a possibilty that God does exist, then there even exists a possibility that God doesn't exist.
You don't seem to be able to digest the former - and you call me arrogant.

Damn, you really are dumb! It's not the existence of god we are talking about here, it seems you cannot grasp that. We are talking about your incredibly flawed logical reasoning, and the half baked steps that you took to reach your conclusion!

Why don't you take the effort to give your own complete description of God instead of introducing the words "lame", "arrogant" into this thread?

Well, your logic is 'lame' and you are arrogant to think you can disprove god in a few lines, where greater minds have failed over many centuries! Why don't I describe God? I don't believe in God, so that is rather impossible. Any description would be nothing more than hearsay.

Wow, I'm talking to a person who sees ghosts at night & has an abduction experience... LOL

And from that it's rather obvious you either didn't read the threads, or understand what I wrote, because they were giving those phenomena mundane explanations. I was not saying had had a paranormal experience. I am a skeptic and an atheist, after all.

And YES, I understand that atheism is not a belief system.. Thank you!

You didn't when you started this thread!

 

[Sarkus]

The chain could go on & on until God is like in the 7,989,124,343,232,229th position which would render it very weak and incapable of comparison with the authority at the top. And in this way it could be reduced to nothingness.

Yes the chain could go on, and on, and on. What does that have to do with anything, though? And why would this diminish the ability of the person at the bottom? If this God created our Universe, how does having an infinite number of more powerful Gods change that fact?

You mean to say that God is everything & anything.

No, I don't mean to say that at all. If I did I would have said it.
Please don't put words into the mouth of others.

Advancing our understanding of the nature of things isn't meaningless, its beneficial & very meaningful.

Exactly - which is why the claim "God did it" is meaningless - as it does NOT further our understanding one iota.

So Santa Claus & bigfoot along with the tooth-fairy could possibly exist outside the known universe of logics?

Yes.

That's what I'm trying to tell you... Don't confuse the possiblity of something occuring with the actual thing occuring.

That is NOT what you are trying to say:

Logics if used in the correct sense disapproves of the existence of a divine power ie. God.

We all know that God possesses infinite power.
So with this infinite power it can create something more powerfal than itself.
If it does so it is no longer the one with maximum power.
And if it can't do so, then it was never the most powerful in the first place!

This simply disapproves of the existence of the Almighty!

THIS is what you were trying to say.
We have pointed out the flaws in this argument.
If you want to change what you are trying to say, feel free - but please do so openly so that we may all be aware of it.

Anyway what I meant was you say 'B' is false & I say 'B' is true...

Fair enough, then what you said was utterly irrelevant to anything that had been said before, or to the argument.

I am concentrating on the argument. But if a person makes such simple mistakes while typing just shows s/he's so hasty to post here - just to get his point straight by any means whatever!

And the typos change the content of the person's argument... how exactly?
The speed by which a person types changes the argument they present... how exactly?

It is a poor debater, or one that feels they are losing, that shift's focus to the irrelevant.
If you wish to comment on peoples' grammar / spelling / hairstyle / whatever rather than the arguments being presented then feel free - but don't expect people to react well.

 

[yank]

Damn, you really are dumb! It's not the existence of god we are talking about here, it seems you cannot grasp that. We are talking about your incredibly flawed logical reasoning, and the half baked steps that you took to reach your conclusion!

If I'm not mistaken I have already given answers to your points which try to find out the flaws in my argument. Next time read carefully before pressing the Reply button & blaming others of what you rightfully are - DUMB!

Well, your logic is 'lame' and you are arrogant to think you can disprove god in a few lines, where greater minds have failed over many centuries! Why don't I describe God? I don't believe in God, so that is rather impossible. Any description would be nothing more than hearsay.

Contradicting yourself. If you don't have any idea of describing God then on what grounds can you state that others' descriptions of God is wrong? And besides I just put up my argument to be debated upon & I'm just simply supporting it. That doesn't mean I have solved the big mystery. And speaking of arrogance, go check out your first reply on this thread? Are you like this with everyone you interact?

And from that it's rather obvious you either didn't read the threads, or understand what I wrote, because they were giving those phenomena mundane explanations. I was not saying had had a paranormal experience. I am a skeptic and an atheist, after all.

Good to hear you're an atheist too!

You didn't when you started this thread!

Yes agreed. Prior to starting this thread I was aware of the dictionary definition of atheism which goes like this "The doctrine or belief that there is no God". But now I have learnt that atheism is absence of a belief system. See, I'm not ashamed of admitting!

 

[yank]

Yes the chain could go on, and on, and on. What does that have to do with anything, though? And why would this diminish the ability of the person at the bottom? If this God created our Universe, how does having an infinite number of more powerful Gods change that fact?

Because having infinite number of more powerful Gods could change the assumption that the universe could have been created by the other powerful ones & not this one!

No, I don't mean to say that at all. If I did I would have said it.
Please don't put words into the mouth of others.

And please don't force your opinion on others!

Exactly - which is why the claim "God did it" is meaningless - as it does NOT further our understanding one iota.

Correct!

That is NOT what you are trying to say:

Logics if used in the correct sense disapproves of the existence of a divine power ie. God.

We all know that God possesses infinite power.
So with this infinite power it can create something more powerfal than itself.
If it does so it is no longer the one with maximum power.
And if it can't do so, then it was never the most powerful in the first place!

This simply disapproves of the existence of the Almighty!

THIS is what you were trying to say.
We have pointed out the flaws in this argument.
If you want to change what you are trying to say, feel free - but please do so openly so that we may all be aware of it.

This does not imply that I have confused the possiblity of something occuring with the actual thing occuring. Those statements are my assumptions. And based on those assumptions i have made my conclusion.
Based on assumptions we derive results of the things which have no evidence whatsoever.
Even the Big Bang theory is just a theory made on assumptions.
So you can completely deny that one too!

Fair enough, then what you said was utterly irrelevant to anything that had been said before, or to the argument.

No it was relevant, as mentioned previously don't force your opinion on others!

And the typos change the content of the person's argument... how exactly?
The speed by which a person types changes the argument they present... how exactly?

They don't change the meaning of the argument. They show how desperately you want to make your point stand irrespective of others opinions!

It is a poor debater, or one that feels they are losing, that shift's focus to the irrelevant.
If you wish to comment on peoples' grammar / spelling / hairstyle / whatever rather than the arguments being presented then feel free - but don't expect people to react well.

Why did the wrong spelling of "prerogative" offend you so much that you are forced to show so much frustration as mentioning "hairstyle"? LOL
If a simple grammar correction offends you so much I don't think you have the right to correct people about their knowledge level which I find highly insufficient in you!

 

[Sarkus]

Because having infinite number of more powerful Gods could change the assumption that the universe could have been created by the other powerful ones & not this one!

There is as much evidence for any of those possibilities. Why change the assumption you made?

And please don't force your opinion on others!

Please indicate how my correcting of your assumption of meaning in my words is me forcing my opinion on you?

No it was relevant

Please indicate how.

They don't change the meaning of the argument. They show how desperately you want to make your point stand irrespective of others opinions!

Please indicate your logic in reaching this conclusion.
You read far too much in to a simple typo and thus reach fallacious conclusions.

Why did the wrong spelling of "prerogative" offend you so much that you are forced to show so much frustration as mentioning "hairstyle"?

The wrong spelling did not offend me - it offended you - hence you felt the need to correct it in the manner you did, with the accompanying remarks that you used.
And how does using the word "hairstyle" indicate frustration?
It is merely to point out how irrelevant the correction is to the debate at hand - and why it is pedantic of you to raise it, and to continue to discuss it.

If a simple grammar correction offends you so much I don't think you have the right to correct people about their knowledge level which I find highly insufficient in you!

The correction itself does not offend - but the manner of it, and the assumptions erroneously reached as a result, did and continue to do so.

I have come to the conclusion from all this that you are more interested in argument for arguments sake rather than trying to actually put forward any coherent debate - continually sidetracking to irrelevancies rather than focussing on the content of responses.

Please do let me know when you can be bothered to actually debate sensibly.

 

[phlogistician]

Contradicting yourself. If you don't have any idea of describing God then on what grounds can you state that others' descriptions of God is wrong?

Your own argument does that for fucks sake! YOU defined God, and then said that description cannot exist. YOU falsified your own premise! But you have not falsified God, merely your description of God!

Can you really be that dumb you don't see this?

 

[Jan Ardena]

geeser,

how sarkus so succinctly put it. quote: " Most would argue that you could not have consciously been an atheist and then turn to become a theist.

That is Sarkus's opinion, as a statement of fact or of intelligence, it means absolutely nothing.

At best you just didn't know which God you believed in, and were probably apathetic to religion, especially the structured religions.

Don't be so patronising. If the person said they were atheist, then that is what they were. Someone who doesn't believe in God.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, a theist is someone that does.

But an apathetic theist is a long way from being an atheist."

You are extremely arrogant.

so he/she was either, mistaken or lying, if he admits he/she was mistaken, then I will apologise for calling him/her a lier, but I doubt he/she will, the religious never do.

As I said before, and atheist is the opposite of a theist, all other information is nonsense to try give the atheist some kind of intellectual credibility.

An atheist does not believe in God....period.

Jan.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I'm aware of the fact that Atheism is the fastest growing system of belief in the world... Can anyone provide me with facts and figures?
Cheers

Where is your proof of this, and please do not submit statistics as 'proof' as statistics are manipulated to fit whatver the agenda is at the time.

Last I heard Islam was the fasted growing belief system in the world. But that was before USA wanted the Arabs oil and they got black listed!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Oh and as Phlo said atheism is not a belief system, atheists do not have belief in a God, confusion arises re those atheists who wrongly 'believe' in the non existance of God.

Hope that makes it clearer, clear like mud eh

 

[I don't know]

Er, in Yank's defence: he did specify that his argument disproved the existence of the allmighty in his first post, not just any god.

He doesn't though, as being allmighty entails the ability to tell logic to go fuck itself


Also, atheism is not a belief system, but it can be a part of one, just like theism.

Where is your proof of this, and please do not submit statistics as 'proof' as statistics are manipulated to fit whatver the agenda is at the time

- Good statistics will usually have some kind of explanation of the process of gathering them, though. So they're hardly useless.

 

[yank]

There is as much evidence for any of those possibilities. Why change the assumption you made?

Where is the evidence? And I haven't changed the assumption, but rather said that it could change if you went your way!

Please indicate how my correcting of your assumption of meaning in my words is me forcing my opinion on you?

Yes it is, because you fail to agree what others have to say. Sticking on your own point and failing to aknowledge other's point shows how limiting your knowledge is!

Please indicate how.

I already have, if you have taken the pain to read it. If not it won't be repeated as the Mods say "There is no need to post your link a second time. Folks will either read it, or not..."

Please indicate your logic in reaching this conclusion.
You read far too much in to a simple typo and thus reach fallacious conclusions.

I have indicated my logic yet many times over the course of this debate. And it seems that our thoughts don't match. Alas we're individuals, and no two individuals are the same. So fallacious conclusions for you may not be fallacious in reality - keep that in mind!

The wrong spelling did not offend me - it offended you - hence you felt the need to correct it in the manner you did, with the accompanying remarks that you used.
And how does using the word "hairstyle" indicate frustration?
It is merely to point out how irrelevant the correction is to the debate at hand - and why it is pedantic of you to raise it, and to continue to discuss it.

Don't put the blame on me. You were offended hence the statement "If you wish to comment on peoples' grammar / spelling / hairstyle..." And besides mine was just a reply to yours if you possess basic common sense, that is? Besides I just mentioned it once and I really wouldn't have to reply to it further here if you hadn't commented back!
Its very easy to get away by putting the blame on someone else of which YOU are guilty!

The correction itself does not offend - but the manner of it, and the assumptions erroneously reached as a result, did and continue to do so.

I have come to the conclusion from all this that you are more interested in argument for arguments sake rather than trying to actually put forward any coherent debate - continually sidetracking to irrelevancies rather than focussing on the content of responses.

Please do let me know when you can be bothered to actually debate sensibly.

You can start reading from the start of this thread and then if you can realize that I started off with normal arguments. Its people like you and phlogistician that unneccessarily have to show off their hysterical wisdom & knowledge to the newbies. Showcasing your knowledge & wisdom is indeed a good idea... people find it interesting, but trying to belittle others by using sly remarks is plain moronic which you two are well versed with.
Try to change your attitude towards interaction and maybe you will fare well in the journey of life!

 

[yank]

Your own argument does that for fucks sake! YOU defined God, and then said that description cannot exist. YOU falsified your own premise! But you have not falsified God, merely your description of God!

Can you really be that dumb you don't see this?

Try to use that bird brain of yours sometime. I defined God and then you sprang up saying that you don't have a definition of God.
"Why don't I describe God? I don't believe in God, so that is rather impossible."
And then I said "If you don't have any idea of describing God then on what grounds can you state that others' descriptions of God is wrong?"
So when did I say that God's description does not exist?
Are you fuckin' high on drugs or what? Or are you really that stupid to understand basic english?
Man, I've never encountered a person as stupid as you are!

 

[yank]

Where is your proof of this, and please do not submit statistics as 'proof' as statistics are manipulated to fit whatver the agenda is at the time.

Last I heard Islam was the fasted growing belief system in the world. But that was before USA wanted the Arabs oil and they got black listed!

If it is not then please provide some evidence as I'm curious!

 

[idlecontrol]

FOOLS you should whip yourselves for this nonesense, the most miraculour of millions of coincidences would have to have occured for their to be life without a greater being, oh but know everything can be explained well you are FOOLS

 

[geeser]

Don't be so patronising. If the person said they were atheist, then that is what they were. Someone who doesn't believe in God.

non-religious does not necessarily mean atheist, atheism is not simple non-religious.
there are some who say they are atheist that dont really understand what an atheist is, (these are usually the religious, trying to make a point, or agnostics, or deists).

there are no god/gods, all it would take is one single instance of the thing for it to exist, where is that one thing.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, a theist is someone that does.

atheist from the greek atheos a (without) and theos (god).
Atheism is "without belief in god." Therefore, an atheist would have "no belief."atheism, is not a belief, just the opposite, atheism is the natural way of things, the religious have just diversified in to fantasy.
dictionary.con defines it as
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
however two points here, it's not a belief, so there cannot be any disbelief, and there cannot be be any denial, for to deny something you must first believe it exists. I believe that atheism, is an indifference to the issue of a god's existence, dictionary.com's second statement is closer
encarta defines it as, unbelief in god or deities.
most dictionaries get it wrong, because they were originally written and printed by theists.

We are all born atheists til our parents or priest abuse us with the religious mind virus
atheism is individual, atheism is what you are, before religion has taken hold, nobody who has been atheist from birth or rediscovered it/cleared his head, would go back to being religious not without the use of drugs or brain damage.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

atheism is individual, atheism is what you are, before religion has taken hold, nobody who has been atheist from birth or rediscovered it/cleared his head, would go back to being religious not without the use of drugs or brain damage.

You are sooooooo wrong, I came to my belief in (we shall call it for arguments sake) God, something that interferes in my life that is unexplained, I was not taught or brainwashed, the belief manifested through personal observation and experience.

 

[usp8riot]

To clear it up, if I asked myself 5 years ago if I believed in a God, I would've said 'I don't know' and have said many times then which technically means I have no belief of/in a God. Atheism, whatever you want to call it, I don't care, it's irrelevant. It's not something I could say I was proud to be so fine, don't call me a former atheist, it is no big deal. But a lot of my thesis was about affirming the biblical God and that He is only one God and perfect. And if you are speaking of a God which isn't perfect or one God, then we are on different tracks because that was what I was discussing. But it makes sense to me, if there was a God/Gods, it would just be one God and would be geometrically perfect in the universe He exists. I imagine His shape would be spherical as the universe is, that is the perfect shape in a dynamic 4d environment. And constantly creating or expanding, inward and outward. Treading new territory. You can never catch up with Him unless He catches you. And that brings up some interesting physics theories or questions. He is, always, and was. He is the 0 in the number scale and we were put here after so therefore we will never catch up or be able to see Him.

If God is like the number scale, going infinitely in both directions and is intelligent, all the raw computational data of all the forces of interactions in the objects of the universe, He can record. And in doing so, He can turn back the hands of time, only God Himself, as He has all the data. I equate it like doing a division problem also. If we have a long division problem or infinite, we can go on and on with the computations and can backtrack every single computation we did just and equate that very simply to all the raw computational data of the physics interactions in the universe, God has been there and on the verge of time/space and knows all the raw physics data, then He can turn back the hands of time. Only God has the power and therefore that is why I believe time travel is impossible unless by God or through God.

And if the universe is equated as one large number, ie, .333333 to infinity, if the universe is created, and that is the total product of the physics interactions in the universe in it's raw mathematical form, then the laws of the universe cannot be changed. Just like the CRC protection in a computer program. You change one binary digit and the whole program won't run because it sees a different sum when it calculates the program in mathematical format. And that is one reason I believe God doesn't or won't break His own rules, a drastic change would have to take place otherwise. God goes by the beautiful laws of mathematics, very logical, predictable, and unchaotic. Correction, He doesn't go by them because He has to since He can change the 'program' if He wishes, but it is His way and it is not for me to say much of why and how about God. I am only an observer, not a commander as God is and feel very much obliged to do His work. I find the workings of the universe very fascinating and one day we will know how it works, I am sure, but only by God. When our soul is unleashed, we will have no body, no energy, only our data for God to see, and as I know, information/data can flow at the speed of God. Non-physical objects are not bound by the laws of physics but raw data, digits, have no form/shape/physical identity and have no barrier since it is now a part of God's mind. That's why I believe our soul is our dna, it is the only distinctive feature we have now, or when we die, and it's relation to what we have done in our life. Our dna is raw data along with our recorded past, which is raw data, and that is our soul. Our tale of adventure in this life. There is so much out there and so much we don't know, I look forward to my day of judgement when I can possibly see for myself the workings of the universe if God would be so kind. Everything in the universe is raw data at the very core. God can recreate any one of us with raw data. We think we can use dna, but dna can be even narrowed down to raw digits and mathematical operators. All He has to do is recreate those digits to recreate us. He has each and every one of our digits recorded. God can bring any one of us back to life is He so wishes by renewing the mathematical data that makes up our dna. And if He sees data that is good, He will use it again. And it will be put back in the system and evolve to an even more refined number. And sometimes I wonder if thinking logically too much can drive you illogical, which some of you may be thinking now.