On July 15 2011 00:42 krndandaman wrote: Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Well there kind of is a trend for educated people to be less religious. Obviously scientists who are very religious are few and far between, and the same can be said for people with most PhDs. It doesn't means that religious people aren't intelligent, but IMO it means that people who care to learn actually tend to come to a different conclusion.
As for most of what you said, well props.
Sigh. Do your research. Have you even read the apologetics? There are many many accurate sources supporting Christianity.
Not really =/ That's why arguments tend to come back to "you have to have faith". Sauces are shady at best. You have to assume many things to call them "accurate sources".
On July 15 2011 00:16 gentile wrote: as a philosophy student all your wikipedia "knowledge" makes me close to actually vomiting..so does the Christianity and any other religions some people have created and still create in order to give their life anything that the common human beeing refers to as a sense. This goes for any Scientific reasoning aswell, for it is always, in the core, at the start, to believe in something, to put something at the start of argument, which cannot be proven. Any mathematical axioms for example are honestly the same as believing in something like a divine god.
In fact it's even worse than this. Not only does one need to come up with axioms from which to argue, one needs to accept a priori that reason is, well, reasonable. That one can arrive at truth via its application. This is due to the unfortunate fact that one cannot prove that reason is reasonable without using reason!
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic (or 'weak' atheism if you really want) as it would be pointless to believe or disbelieve. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
On July 14 2011 23:39 krndandaman wrote: Yes, I believe in God.
it's really quite ridiculous how many people complain about Christians shoving religion down others' throats when atheists try to do the same to me (bash my beliefs).
I really don't get why a lot of the people on this forum are making statements such as "whoever believes in an invisible old bearded man in the sky is clearly dangerous and insane". Honestly?
If you did any research you'd understand that it really isn't far-fetched at all to believe in a god or higher-being in the first place.
Either way, arguing about religion on the internet really never gets anywhere lol.
Shoving beliefs down people's throats is trying to enforce religious dogma into law, like what many Christians do, still actively fighting against gay marriage, not telling you you're stupid. Maybe when an atheist tries to ban Christianity you may have a point.
I don't see how that covers the millions of Christians around the world (You're probably addressing Christians who live in the US who oppose gay marriage). Me personally as a Christian, think we have much bigger things to worry about than allowing gay marriage. Would I oppose gay marriage? To be honest, I don't even care. I believe that deciding whether gay marriage is legalized or not is not an issue Christians should be so concerned with. Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Getting married doesn't make the sin any worse so I don't quite agree with the Christians vehemently opposing gay marriage. Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world. My point is that there should be a basic level of respect and courtesy between people no matter the difference in religion.
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone totoday attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Sigh. Do your research. Have you even read the apologetics? There are many many accurate sources supporting Christianity. It's silly to not think there are. And did you just really try to compare today's ability to record and document information with that of more than 2000 years ago?
And I think it's wrong to try to intimidate people by telling them they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't follow your religion with no proof.
On July 15 2011 00:53 krndandaman wrote:lol you have no idea how many times I heard the same things from other atheists. those are just 'typical' objections many atheists use.
just use google and you'll see how much support there is.
The earth wasn' created in seven days, it's 4.5 billion years old. There has been no flood, there is no evidence of it in any sedimentary layers.
I cannot comment on the existence of Jesus since I have never looked into it.
And I think it's wrong to try to intimidate people by telling them they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't follow your religion with no proof.
Another reason why the Christian god is either sadistic as hell or simply inconsistent
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
If I may be allowed to elucidate. If a statement isn't falsifiable, as the statement "God exists" seems to be, then the statement becomes equivalent to its converse, meaning that there is no logical reason to pick one over the other. In situations like this most people choose the statement which makes the least assumptions. In this case, that would obviously be the negation of the aforementioned statement. That God exists, assumes the existence of an infinitely complex being, so that is one big-ass assumption.
On July 14 2011 23:39 krndandaman wrote: Yes, I believe in God.
it's really quite ridiculous how many people complain about Christians shoving religion down others' throats when atheists try to do the same to me (bash my beliefs).
I really don't get why a lot of the people on this forum are making statements such as "whoever believes in an invisible old bearded man in the sky is clearly dangerous and insane". Honestly?
If you did any research you'd understand that it really isn't far-fetched at all to believe in a god or higher-being in the first place.
Either way, arguing about religion on the internet really never gets anywhere lol.
Shoving beliefs down people's throats is trying to enforce religious dogma into law, like what many Christians do, still actively fighting against gay marriage, not telling you you're stupid. Maybe when an atheist tries to ban Christianity you may have a point.
I don't see how that covers the millions of Christians around the world (You're probably addressing Christians who live in the US who oppose gay marriage). Me personally as a Christian, think we have much bigger things to worry about than allowing gay marriage. Would I oppose gay marriage? To be honest, I don't even care. I believe that deciding whether gay marriage is legalized or not is not an issue Christians should be so concerned with. Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Getting married doesn't make the sin any worse so I don't quite agree with the Christians vehemently opposing gay marriage. Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world. My point is that there should be a basic level of respect and courtesy between people no matter the difference in religion.
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone totoday attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Sigh. Do your research. Have you even read the apologetics? There are many many accurate sources supporting Christianity. It's silly to not think there are. And did you just really try to compare today's ability to record and document information with that of more than 2000 years ago?
There are various things in the Bible that are simply incorrect, there's no evidence to support the story of noah's ark for example, Jesus' existence is questionable, we know the earth wasn't created in 7 days. Inc "it was all a metaphor lolz"
lol you have no idea how many times I heard the same things from other atheists. those are just 'typical' objections many atheists use.
just use google and you'll see how much support there is.
You have no idea how many times I heard the same things from other theists. Those are 'typical' arguments many theists use. just use google and you'll see how stupid it is.
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic (or 'weak' atheism if you really want) as it would be pointless to believe or disbelieve. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
I don't think it was an ad populum. He was just saying that Calling Christians stupid = Calling a third of the world stupid.
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic (or 'weak' atheism if you really want) as it would be pointless to believe or disbelieve. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
I don't think it was an ad populum. He was just saying that Calling Christians stupid = Calling a third of the world stupid.
What would be wrong with that.
If I may be allowed to elucidate. If a statement isn't falsifiable, as the statement "God exists" seems to be, then the statement becomes equivalent to its converse, meaning that there is no logical reason to pick one over the other. In situations like this most people choose the statement which makes the least assumptions. In this case, that would obviously be the negation of the aforementioned statement. That God exists, assumes the existence of an infinitely complex being, so that is one big-ass assumption.
No, the only logical stance to take would be to continue your life without paying attention to it.
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic (or 'weak' atheism if you really want) as it would be pointless to believe or disbelieve. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
I don't think it was an ad populum. He was just saying that Calling Christians stupid = Calling a third of the world stupid.
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic (or 'weak' atheism if you really want) as it would be pointless to believe or disbelieve. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
I don't think it was an ad populum. He was just saying that Calling Christians stupid = Calling a third of the world stupid.
Seems accurate to me.
Still not an ad populum.
But yes, a lot more than a third of the world's population is stupid. =)
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone today attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Being a Deist is not very different from being an Atheist really. Think about it. When you ask why ppl randomly believe in something like God, same can be ask for every scientific theory such as gravity.
Can you prove God's existence? No. Can you prove gravity's existence? No. Einstein once said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Point is, just like any sound scientific theory, God is an idea/phenomena that many assumes exist. And until we found evidence to disprove God, it is absolutely logical for ppl to be deist.
Tl;dr Chill guys. No need to get heated.
No it is not logical. My god, it is not logical to believe in something without evidence. I saw an ufo today! You have to believe me now, even though I did not provide any evidence because that how logic works! I also saw a two headed rabbit with wings and it breath fire out of it's anus! You'd better believe me or you're being illogical!
You are right, it is not logical to believe in something without evidence.
Here, look at the law of conservation of energy: Total energy in a system remains constant overtime, in which energy cannot be created or destroyed.
And before you talk about string theory, give evidence for that first.
On July 15 2011 00:16 gentile wrote: as a philosophy student all your wikipedia "knowledge" makes me close to actually vomiting..so does the Christianity and any other religions some people have created and still create in order to give their life anything that the common human beeing refers to as a sense. This goes for any Scientific reasoning aswell, for it is always, in the core, at the start, to believe in something, to put something at the start of argument, which cannot be proven. Any mathematical axioms for example are honestly the same as believing in something like a divine god. This does not mean in any way that you all shoudnt be allowed to believe what you want. In the end I actually dont give a crap what you think is right or wrong for it doesnt matter at all to be frank. All this nonsense just pulls you further away from actually asking yourself the real questions you should have ask yourself about how and why and where and when you want to spend your life. Only the weak search for any kind of guidance in faith, unable to accept that life is cruel and an end will surely come and therefor should live in the very moment, instead of always looking right and left should rather gather their own strenght to actually be who they are, who they are meant to be.
Why are you studying philsophy? you've got all the answers already... Why do you spend ur time studying the works of men who, in most cases, belong to the very organizations you slander? Why do you study at all?
You seem to be (and correct me if im wrong as your writings leaves me guessing) presenting yourself as an absurdist, a solist and fatalist all at once. None of those concepts are particularly novel and can be found in the angst filled writings of any given adolescent...if you truly don't care then don't speak when you have nothing new to offer the discussion.
On July 14 2011 23:39 krndandaman wrote: Yes, I believe in God.
it's really quite ridiculous how many people complain about Christians shoving religion down others' throats when atheists try to do the same to me (bash my beliefs).
I really don't get why a lot of the people on this forum are making statements such as "whoever believes in an invisible old bearded man in the sky is clearly dangerous and insane". Honestly?
If you did any research you'd understand that it really isn't far-fetched at all to believe in a god or higher-being in the first place.
Either way, arguing about religion on the internet really never gets anywhere lol.
Shoving beliefs down people's throats is trying to enforce religious dogma into law, like what many Christians do, still actively fighting against gay marriage, not telling you you're stupid. Maybe when an atheist tries to ban Christianity you may have a point.
I don't see how that covers the millions of Christians around the world (You're probably addressing Christians who live in the US who oppose gay marriage). Me personally as a Christian, think we have much bigger things to worry about than allowing gay marriage. Would I oppose gay marriage? To be honest, I don't even care. I believe that deciding whether gay marriage is legalized or not is not an issue Christians should be so concerned with. Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Getting married doesn't make the sin any worse so I don't quite agree with the Christians vehemently opposing gay marriage. Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world. My point is that there should be a basic level of respect and courtesy between people no matter the difference in religion.
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone totoday attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Sigh. Do your research. Have you even read the apologetics? There are many many accurate sources supporting Christianity. It's silly to not think there are. And did you just really try to compare today's ability to record and document information with that of more than 2000 years ago?
And I think it's wrong to try to intimidate people by telling them they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't follow your religion with no proof.
If you truly believe that, you seriously need to talk with actual Christians.
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone today attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Being a Deist is not very different from being an Atheist really. Think about it. When you ask why ppl randomly believe in something like God, same can be ask for every scientific theory such as gravity.
Can you prove God's existence? No. Can you prove gravity's existence? No. Einstein once said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Point is, just like any sound scientific theory, God is an idea/phenomena that many assumes exist. And until we found evidence to disprove God, it is absolutely logical for ppl to be deist.
Tl;dr Chill guys. No need to get heated.
What you are saying is: it is and will be always, till the end of times be possible that there is a god. Even when there is amounts of evidence there isn't one because you can never be really sure. You are right in that but that's not how logic works.
Basically, yeah. And what evidence are you talking about. And how does logic works...?
On July 14 2011 23:39 krndandaman wrote: Yes, I believe in God.
it's really quite ridiculous how many people complain about Christians shoving religion down others' throats when atheists try to do the same to me (bash my beliefs).
I really don't get why a lot of the people on this forum are making statements such as "whoever believes in an invisible old bearded man in the sky is clearly dangerous and insane". Honestly?
If you did any research you'd understand that it really isn't far-fetched at all to believe in a god or higher-being in the first place.
Either way, arguing about religion on the internet really never gets anywhere lol.
Shoving beliefs down people's throats is trying to enforce religious dogma into law, like what many Christians do, still actively fighting against gay marriage, not telling you you're stupid. Maybe when an atheist tries to ban Christianity you may have a point.
I don't see how that covers the millions of Christians around the world (You're probably addressing Christians who live in the US who oppose gay marriage). Me personally as a Christian, think we have much bigger things to worry about than allowing gay marriage. Would I oppose gay marriage? To be honest, I don't even care. I believe that deciding whether gay marriage is legalized or not is not an issue Christians should be so concerned with. Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Getting married doesn't make the sin any worse so I don't quite agree with the Christians vehemently opposing gay marriage. Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world. My point is that there should be a basic level of respect and courtesy between people no matter the difference in religion.
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone totoday attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Sigh. Do your research. Have you even read the apologetics? There are many many accurate sources supporting Christianity. It's silly to not think there are. And did you just really try to compare today's ability to record and document information with that of more than 2000 years ago?
And I think it's wrong to try to intimidate people by telling them they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't follow your religion with no proof.
If you truly believe that, you seriously need to talk with actual Christians. Telling people that they will burn in hell for eternity because they don't believe in the same thing you do is not a Christian thing to do. It's arrogant and most importantly 'not of love'. Loving others is the most important commandment in the Christian religion.
On July 14 2011 23:39 krndandaman wrote: Yes, I believe in God.
it's really quite ridiculous how many people complain about Christians shoving religion down others' throats when atheists try to do the same to me (bash my beliefs).
I really don't get why a lot of the people on this forum are making statements such as "whoever believes in an invisible old bearded man in the sky is clearly dangerous and insane". Honestly?
If you did any research you'd understand that it really isn't far-fetched at all to believe in a god or higher-being in the first place.
Either way, arguing about religion on the internet really never gets anywhere lol.
Shoving beliefs down people's throats is trying to enforce religious dogma into law, like what many Christians do, still actively fighting against gay marriage, not telling you you're stupid. Maybe when an atheist tries to ban Christianity you may have a point.
I don't see how that covers the millions of Christians around the world (You're probably addressing Christians who live in the US who oppose gay marriage). Me personally as a Christian, think we have much bigger things to worry about than allowing gay marriage. Would I oppose gay marriage? To be honest, I don't even care. I believe that deciding whether gay marriage is legalized or not is not an issue Christians should be so concerned with. Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Getting married doesn't make the sin any worse so I don't quite agree with the Christians vehemently opposing gay marriage. Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world. My point is that there should be a basic level of respect and courtesy between people no matter the difference in religion.
I still think burden of proof is on the person believing in god, atheism is without belief and isn't claiming certainty of no god. The video wraps it up well.
Glad to see the thread hasn't turned into a shitfest/flamewar yet, hopefully it can stay that way.
I watched the start of the video and already there are a couple things I disagree with.
Let me first define atheism for you: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
Copied off of wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, this literally means that an atheist considers it a fact that there is no God, of any kind. However, since one cannot state that as a fact (Since there are legit reasonings leading to the conclusion of there being a God, in the broadest sense of the word) one could say that, atheists ->believe<- there is no God, at all.
Which brings me back to my post you quoted.
In that case you can claim that there are no facts, because the universe is huge and we can't know.
...Which is daft.
You can't say the flying spaghetti monster nor scientology is untrue but people consider those false without even thinking about it. Same with most of the over 3000 dead religions gods.
I could make up a god right now, and it would have the same likelihood of the christian god or any other god existing. I could make it as ridiculous as possible, and it would still not be "unprovable". And you couldn't say I just made it up, because I could be a prophet!
So understand that if you go down the seriously weak route of "well you can't prove a god doesn't exist" what you're really doing is instead of judging religion with the critical thinking faculties you've applied to unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, all the old weird religions/paganism, you're going with paschal's wager. And paschal's wager is a contemptable piece of writing, because it seems to assume that the god in question (who is supposedly omniscient) could be fooled by a mere human.
It's just pathetic pandering.
Um, just saying, but the Christian God has much more sources backing it up on top of testimonials, historical documents, etc. whereas the flying spaghetti monster and whatever god you may conjure up doesn't. So yeah, I don't think it's fair to put it that way lol
It simply doesn't. The closest historian to "jesus" was Josephus, who wrote hand-me-down stories 20 years after his supposed death. Imagine if someone totoday attempted to hand in a history paper as an accurate source, with all information being obtained from uneducated, illiterate story tellers 20 years after the supposed event? You'd be given an F.
All other accounts are even more out of their time.
Anyway back to deism, so do you who just randomly "believe" to fill in a gap of knowledge instead of saying I don't know, not feel any intellectual dishonesty to that? Not feel as if you're selling your own mental abilities short? I would.
Sigh. Do your research. Have you even read the apologetics? There are many many accurate sources supporting Christianity. It's silly to not think there are. And did you just really try to compare today's ability to record and document information with that of more than 2000 years ago?
There are various things in the Bible that are simply incorrect, there's no evidence to support the story of noah's ark for example, Jesus' existence is questionable, we know the earth wasn't created in 7 days. Inc "it was all a metaphor lolz"
lol you have no idea how many times I heard the same things from other atheists. those are just 'typical' objections many atheists use.
just use google and you'll see how much support there is.
You have no idea how many times I heard the same things from other theists. Those are 'typical' arguments many theists use. just use google and you'll see how stupid it is.
Also 2 posts above me.
... are you just saying that for the sake of mimicking because I highly doubt that
Also, I feel that calling someone stupid for a belief they have is just wrong. Many people with different levels of intelligence, both high and low, believe in a god. It isn't something that can be physically proved or disproved so it's quite pointless to call someone stupid over it. Especially when it's believed by a good 1/3 of the world.
Ah, argument ad populum. The second worst of them all right behind ad hoc.
If it cannot be proven or disproven the only logical stance to take is agnostic (or 'weak' atheism if you really want) as it would be pointless to believe or disbelieve. Also, watch this video: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
I don't think it was an ad populum. He was just saying that Calling Christians stupid = Calling a third of the world stupid.
yes, exactly.
I was simply demonstrating how your response had absolutely no depth and didn't rebut anything. Just said "lolol heard it a million times USE GOOGLE BRO"
EPT
Chill dude.
