On July 14 2011 18:38 Linkirvana wrote: In my opinion, being a deist is as "bad" as being an atheist, or a christian etc.
The arrogance of attributing truth to these ->theories<- has always baffled me. There is simply no way of knowing whether or not we were created by a God. That is in my opinion the only proper stance you can take on this subject. There are proper arguments for both the existence of a God (In the broadest sense of the word) and the non-existence of a God.
Faith only has meaning, when there are grounds for that faith. Without ->solid<- ground to base your faith upon, your faith has no meaning, and is just a random guess. Which should be acknowledged as such.
On July 14 2011 17:10 lisward wrote: I don't believe in a God but I believe that life can be created, because I remember reading in some magazine that some science person created a life. Does that make me religious?
F no, science is something that exists, religion is something that doesnt exist! you can see science so you believe it, but religion just words and nothing else, and why does religion always asks for money and they have goldende churches and stuff like that! jesus in the bible is described as a porr man who didnt need money and god as the same, but everyone who believes in it, asks or gives bunch of money for that, what the F????????????????????????????????????????
What pisses me off even more is that in my country you pay tax money from your salary to the church by default. Ironically the burden is on you to go out of the church system and not the other way around. Kind of like the burden is on atheists to prove that there's no god, according to the idiots of religion.
I saw the first one and it was the guy making claims about things but not attempting to provide any evidence for them or telling people where they can find any evidence. He just said things as fact and added interviewees who were saying the same things, and adding quotes of historical figures who agreed with him.
i dont believe in god and even it exists and comes to me personally i refuse to worship it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
On July 14 2011 18:38 Linkirvana wrote: In my opinion, being a deist is as "bad" as being an atheist, or a christian etc.
The arrogance of attributing truth to these ->theories<- has always baffled me. There is simply no way of knowing whether or not we were created by a God. That is in my opinion the only proper stance you can take on this subject. There are proper arguments for both the existence of a God (In the broadest sense of the word) and the non-existence of a God.
Faith only has meaning, when there are grounds for that faith. Without ->solid<- ground to base your faith upon, your faith has no meaning, and is just a random guess. Which should be acknowledged as such.
I'm not attributing truth to my beliefs. I'm attributing the possibility of truth to my beliefs. I agree that my beliefs ARE just a guess. But I'm fine with that. And there's no arrogance in it. I have no way of knowing if what I believe is what's right, but my imagination prefers that I come up with something, than rather say "I just don't know, nor do I care."
I believe there are aliens out there in other galaxys, or maybe even in our own. I'm not saying "There are definitely aliens out there," I'm saying "There may be aliens out there, and I think it's probable." There is a huge difference.
Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
What pisses me off even more is that in my country you pay tax money from your salary to the church by default. Ironically the burden is on you to go out of the church system and not the other way around. Kind of like the burden is on atheists to prove that there's no god, according to the idiots of religion.
I guess that for the people claiming there is a God, the burden of proving there is is on them.
However if you claim to be 100% sure there is no God, you should be able to back that up as well.
Either claim is based on half-truths and arrogance. You just can't know.
I'm not attributing truth to my beliefs. I'm attributing the possibility of truth to my beliefs. I agree that my beliefs ARE just a guess. But I'm fine with that. And there's no arrogance in it. I have no way of knowing if what I believe is what's right, but my imagination prefers that I come up with something, than rather say "I just don't know, nor do I care."
I believe there are aliens out there in other galaxys, or maybe even in our own. I'm not saying "There are definitely aliens out there," I'm saying "There may be aliens out there, and I think it's probable." There is a huge difference.
It's really not difficult to understand.
When you use the words "I believe" I don't think you know what those words mean.
As I wrote in my former post, faith only has meaning if it's based on solid ground. If you only recognize your beliefs as a possibility, then you don't truely believe your beliefs. -insert Xzibit's face here-
I also like to think there are aliens out there, however that's as far as it goes. I cannot say that I believe in aliens, because in my opinion beliefs have to be properly justified.
:Edit: What I said above about aliens is not entirely true, actually a belief in aliens can be properly justified. However the for example deist belief is in my opinion not properly justified.
On July 14 2011 18:52 Pholon wrote: Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
This is where it gets tricky for me. Because I agree with you 100%. Who created the creator, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him? It's perpetual. But I don't think the answer to that question is something that we will ever have the ability to understand thoroughly, assuming we find it. Instinct tells me there HAS to be a beginning, but where did that come from and where did that come from and where did that come from, and there are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but it's just hard to comprehend that things just "came into being" from nothing in whatever the ACTUAL beginning was. I understand that my belief isn't even really a good explanation, in fact, I'd say it's NOT an explanation, because even in my beliefs I wonder, well what came before that.
I don't even know if this is making any sense to anyone but myself.
there is absolutly no hint towards the existence of a creator, nor has anyone come up with an explanation how this creator was "created". Therefore I see no reason in believing in it, cuz it obviously explains nothing, but shifts the whole Problem. From all I have read the Big Bang Theory seems the most plausible, even if I dont know (by now) why it happened. But thats totally ok for me. People tend to search for meaning, which is very human, but the universe and matter doesn`t care about it.
I'm not attributing truth to my beliefs. I'm attributing the possibility of truth to my beliefs. I agree that my beliefs ARE just a guess. But I'm fine with that. And there's no arrogance in it. I have no way of knowing if what I believe is what's right, but my imagination prefers that I come up with something, than rather say "I just don't know, nor do I care."
I believe there are aliens out there in other galaxys, or maybe even in our own. I'm not saying "There are definitely aliens out there," I'm saying "There may be aliens out there, and I think it's probable." There is a huge difference.
It's really not difficult to understand.
When you use the words "I believe" I don't think you know what those words mean.
As I wrote in my former post, faith only has meaning if it's based on solid ground. If you only recognize your beliefs as a possibility, then you don't truely believe your beliefs. -insert Xzibit's face here-
I also like to think there are aliens out there, however that's as far as it goes. I cannot say that I believe in aliens, because in my opinion beliefs have to be properly justified.
:Edit: What I said above about aliens is not entirely true, actually a belief in aliens can be properly justified. However the for example deist belief is in my opinion not properly justified.
It's really not difficult to understand.
Hmm. I guess you're right. It seems even having this discussion in the first place has helped me better understand what it is that I actually believe. And it seems that I believe in nothing, because I have faith in nothing.
On July 14 2011 18:52 Pholon wrote: Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
This is where it gets tricky for me. Because I agree with you 100%. Who created the creator, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him? It's perpetual. But I don't think the answer to that question is something that we will ever have the ability to understand thoroughly, assuming we find it. Instinct tells me there HAS to be a beginning, but where did that come from and where did that come from and where did that come from, and there are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but it's just hard to comprehend that things just "came into being" from nothing in whatever the ACTUAL beginning was. I understand that my belief isn't even really a good explanation, in fact, I'd say it's NOT an explanation, because even in my beliefs I wonder, well what came before that.
I don't even know if this is making any sense to anyone but myself.
It makes sense. It's just self-defeating.
You accept that we can't know where the creator came from, but fail to apply the same rationale to the universe itself. Why not just say we can't know where it came from, how it began, if it began, etc. You recognize the limits of your reasoning, but take it too far.
You refuse to speculate on the origins of a creator, the creator's creator, etc, because it is unknowable. This is wise. Why speculate that such a creator exists in the first place? Isn't that also in the "unknowable" category.
What pisses me off even more is that in my country you pay tax money from your salary to the church by default. Ironically the burden is on you to go out of the church system and not the other way around. Kind of like the burden is on atheists to prove that there's no god, according to the idiots of religion.
I guess that for the people claiming there is a God, the burden of proving there is is on them.
However if you claim to be 100% sure there is no God, you should be able to back that up as well.
Either claim is based on half-truths and arrogance. You just can't know.
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.
On July 14 2011 18:52 Pholon wrote: Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
This is where it gets tricky for me. Because I agree with you 100%. Who created the creator, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him? It's perpetual. But I don't think the answer to that question is something that we will ever have the ability to understand thoroughly, assuming we find it. Instinct tells me there HAS to be a beginning, but where did that come from and where did that come from and where did that come from, and there are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but it's just hard to comprehend that things just "came into being" from nothing in whatever the ACTUAL beginning was. I understand that my belief isn't even really a good explanation, in fact, I'd say it's NOT an explanation, because even in my beliefs I wonder, well what came before that.
I don't even know if this is making any sense to anyone but myself.
It makes sense. It's just self-defeating.
You accept that we can't know where the creator came from, but fail to apply the same rationale to the universe itself. Why not just say we can't know where it came from, how it began, if it began, etc. You recognize the limits of your reasoning, but take it too far.
You refuse to speculate on the origins of a creator, the creator's creator, etc, because it is unknowable. This is wise. Why speculate that such a creator exists in the first place? Isn't that also in the "unknowable" category.
That's actually what I meant by "who created him." I'm just too tired to properly sort my words, right now, lol. The hardest thing for me to accept is the "if it began" thing. Everything we know thus far tells us that things begin. The concept of "no beginning" just doesn't seem possible to me. I guess what I've done is apply complete speculation to something simply because I don't and can't understand. It actually seems like a rather weak thing to do, now that I think about it.
On July 14 2011 18:52 Pholon wrote: Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
This is where it gets tricky for me. Because I agree with you 100%. Who created the creator, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him? It's perpetual. But I don't think the answer to that question is something that we will ever have the ability to understand thoroughly, assuming we find it. Instinct tells me there HAS to be a beginning, but where did that come from and where did that come from and where did that come from, and there are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but it's just hard to comprehend that things just "came into being" from nothing in whatever the ACTUAL beginning was. I understand that my belief isn't even really a good explanation, in fact, I'd say it's NOT an explanation, because even in my beliefs I wonder, well what came before that.
I don't even know if this is making any sense to anyone but myself.
It makes sense. It's just self-defeating.
You accept that we can't know where the creator came from, but fail to apply the same rationale to the universe itself. Why not just say we can't know where it came from, how it began, if it began, etc. You recognize the limits of your reasoning, but take it too far.
You refuse to speculate on the origins of a creator, the creator's creator, etc, because it is unknowable. This is wise. Why speculate that such a creator exists in the first place? Isn't that also in the "unknowable" category.
That's actually what I meant by "who created him." I'm just too tired to properly sort my words, right now, lol. The hardest thing for me to accept is the "if it began" thing. Everything we know thus far tells us that things begin. The concept of "no beginning" just doesn't seem possible to me. I guess what I've done is apply complete speculation to something simply because I don't and can't understand. It actually seems like a rather weak thing to do, now that I think about it.
Almost as good as trying to imagine the end of the universe or thinking about infinity. Every thing we have experienced in our life is finite, so thinking of anything infinite or unending just doesn't seem possible to our brains.
On July 14 2011 18:52 Pholon wrote: Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
This is where it gets tricky for me. Because I agree with you 100%. Who created the creator, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him, and who created him? It's perpetual. But I don't think the answer to that question is something that we will ever have the ability to understand thoroughly, assuming we find it. Instinct tells me there HAS to be a beginning, but where did that come from and where did that come from and where did that come from, and there are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but it's just hard to comprehend that things just "came into being" from nothing in whatever the ACTUAL beginning was. I understand that my belief isn't even really a good explanation, in fact, I'd say it's NOT an explanation, because even in my beliefs I wonder, well what came before that.
I don't even know if this is making any sense to anyone but myself.
Yeah but, even if we never find out why there was a big bang, or what was before it, it's just arrogant to fill that gap with a God. Imo you jsut need to just say we don't know. It could be a God, it could be chance, it could be Aliens or we could all be in some supercomputer's simulation. We don't know now and if we never find out we need to just admit ignorance. The whole idea of a supernatural being obviously came from religion and using it's concept to fill in a gap of knowledge doesn't really help (not is there any good motivation for doing so)
Atheist because I haven't seen enough evidence to prove to me the existence of a deity or deities, at least not the Abrahamic God. I haven't ruled out Wiccan gods/desses yet due to a lack of information, same with most other religions's gods.
On July 14 2011 18:52 Pholon wrote: Not a deist, and I hold that no reason has ever been forwarded by another primate to believe there is. If you assume that there has to be a creator then I'll ask the clever clever question (who created the creator, who invented the inventor) and it's a slap in the face of science if you just throw up your hands and go "well how else?!"
That argument or "question" is flawed on both sides of 'religious' and 'scientific' domains.
Religion cannot explain "who" or "how" god was created Just like science cannot explain "what" or "how" there is existence
Both sides do not hold a answer to this. The only difference in view is "omnipresent conscious being attributed with the reason of existence" or "Yet to be explained or big bang(which is as fruitless to answer the "existence" question)"
Really, the argument of god and sciences is in the end the argument of if existence has a personal(theist)/impersonal(deist) omni-conscious creation aspect to it or infact has no omni-conscious aspect(scientific thought?)
I hope people instead of assuming they know right, instead seek out the truth for themselves. While also holding respect for all other truth seekers.
On July 14 2011 16:32 snotboogie wrote: When it comes down to it, the existence of life, consciousness and intelligence on an inhabitable planet is way too coincidental to be random. Yes, I believe in God.
The universe is such a big place that the most random/unexpected things happens all the time.
Edit:
Look at this video if you are interested in finding out how the universe was able to come from nothing.
EPT
