Um no its not. Atheists are saying by being atheists that they know (by the principle that they believe, else they themselves are being illogical, ie believing something they can't possibly prove) that there is no god. You can't call atheism any more logical than Christianity.DrunkFace wrote:
Just because I say there is an invisible oogagbooga, is the fact you don't believe just because you have no proof they don't exist make you dumb?ATG wrote:
Personally, I think atheists are dumb.
They claim to know the unknowable.
Agnosticism is the only logical position.
In fact the whole premise that you can't dismiss something because you can't prove it doesn't exist is completely illogical.
Yes I can. I rationalise my belief due to evidence, they have non yet still believe in 'nothing'. I don't know but evidence leads me to believe there is no God, just like in my example I believe there is no such thing as an invisible oogagbooga because of the lack of any evidence to support such a claim. I may be wrong, I accept I may be wrong, but without any 'proof' I have to assume there is no such thing.Vilham wrote:
Um no its not. Atheists are saying by being atheists that they know (by the principle that they believe, else they themselves are being illogical, ie believing something they can't possibly prove) that there is no god. You can't call atheism any more logical than Christianity.DrunkFace wrote:
Just because I say there is an invisible oogagbooga, is the fact you don't believe just because you have no proof they don't exist make you dumb?ATG wrote:
Personally, I think atheists are dumb.
They claim to know the unknowable.
Agnosticism is the only logical position.
In fact the whole premise that you can't dismiss something because you can't prove it doesn't exist is completely illogical.
i see where you are coming from, but you are missing the point here: logic does not equal rationalism. the ability of human mind to logically operate with abstract or outright illogical stuff is one of fundamental difference between us and animals - basically, we can imagine things that don't exist. our entire civilization is built around imagining assorted "what if"s and "oogagbooga"s and then finding practical ways to build and use 'em - mathematics, physics, the list goes on. ironically, this ability is also the very soil on which our faith in "supernatural" and, hence, all the religions are based.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes I can. I rationalise my belief due to evidence, they have non yet still believe in 'nothing'. I don't know but evidence leads me to believe there is no God, just like in my example I believe there is no such thing as an invisible oogagbooga because of the lack of any evidence to support such a claim. I may be wrong, I accept I may be wrong, but without any 'proof' I have to assume there is no such thing.Vilham wrote:
Um no its not. Atheists are saying by being atheists that they know (by the principle that they believe, else they themselves are being illogical, ie believing something they can't possibly prove) that there is no god. You can't call atheism any more logical than Christianity.DrunkFace wrote:
Just because I say there is an invisible oogagbooga, is the fact you don't believe just because you have no proof they don't exist make you dumb?
In fact the whole premise that you can't dismiss something because you can't prove it doesn't exist is completely illogical.
so, in the face of pure logic statements like "there's a god" and "there's no god" are absolutely equal - both require proof.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
With proof or evidence I am willing and able to change my beliefs and knowledge, I also accept most inventions and discoveries were due to our limitless imagination and the endevours of people going beyond the 'logical' to discover new things. I can even fathom myself looking beyond the logical in extreme circumstances, but at the same time, these illogical thoughts, these theories are just figments of imagination without the trials, tests and documented evidence to prove them.Shahter wrote:
i see where you are coming from, but you are missing the point here: logic does not equal rationalism. the ability of human mind to logically operate with abstract or outright illogical stuff is one of fundamental difference between us and animals - basically, we can imagine things that don't exist. our entire civilization is built around imagining assorted "what if"s and "oogagbooga"s and then finding practical ways to build and use 'em - mathematics, physics, the list goes on. ironically, this ability is also the very soil on which our faith in "supernatural" and, hence, all the religions are based.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes I can. I rationalise my belief due to evidence, they have non yet still believe in 'nothing'. I don't know but evidence leads me to believe there is no God, just like in my example I believe there is no such thing as an invisible oogagbooga because of the lack of any evidence to support such a claim. I may be wrong, I accept I may be wrong, but without any 'proof' I have to assume there is no such thing.Vilham wrote:
Um no its not. Atheists are saying by being atheists that they know (by the principle that they believe, else they themselves are being illogical, ie believing something they can't possibly prove) that there is no god. You can't call atheism any more logical than Christianity.
so, in the face of pure logic statements like "there's a god" and "there's no god" are absolutely equal - both require proof.
The problem with religion is it accepted as face value without any 'tests'. People change their lives in the pursuit of an ideal they have no desire to prove, they don't bother trying to rationalise their illogical thoughts, but claim they have faith rather then trying to garner real knowledge. You can and will argue I also am not trying to prove Gods non existence, but I'm not the one who has changed or live their life based on unproven ideas. I would seek the truth before changing and as I have no desire nor need of God I do not bother to try and prove nor disprove his existence but choose to, as I said before believe he does not exist due to the total lack of any evidence, as well as the fact I know it's near on impossible to prove that something 'does not exist', which is the great loop hole used by the 'faithful'. They neither seek to find the truth nor accept Gods non existence because they know they can never be proved 'wrong'.
Fair enough, doesn't change that your being as illogical as any one believing in any other religion.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes I can. I rationalise my belief due to evidence, they have non yet still believe in 'nothing'. I don't know but evidence leads me to believe there is no God, just like in my example I believe there is no such thing as an invisible oogagbooga because of the lack of any evidence to support such a claim. I may be wrong, I accept I may be wrong, but without any 'proof' I have to assume there is no such thing.Vilham wrote:
Um no its not. Atheists are saying by being atheists that they know (by the principle that they believe, else they themselves are being illogical, ie believing something they can't possibly prove) that there is no god. You can't call atheism any more logical than Christianity.DrunkFace wrote:
Just because I say there is an invisible oogagbooga, is the fact you don't believe just because you have no proof they don't exist make you dumb?
In fact the whole premise that you can't dismiss something because you can't prove it doesn't exist is completely illogical.
What I don't understand is how you know you may be wrong and therefore you know you can't prove or disprove, but you believe something else to what your own logic has pointed at.... that's totally logical.
this is simply not true. not only some of them "seek to find the truth" - the religious people stand among the best minds humanity's ever created. some of the phylosofers and artists largely responsible for our current culture, for the notion we currently have of ourselves, were very religious, there's no denying that, right?DrunkFace wrote:
The problem with religion is it accepted as face value without any 'tests'. People change their lives in the pursuit of an ideal they have no desire to prove, they don't bother trying to rationalise their illogical thoughts, but claim they have faith rather then trying to garner real knowledge...
They neither seek to find the truth nor accept Gods non existence because they know they can never be proved 'wrong'.
all that said, i don't really argue against your rationalistic stance - that i think is pretty positive outlook. what i'm saying is, imho, when it comes to such dubius stuff as "faith" or "god" where stuff's neither clearly defined nor generally agreed upon, whoever is preaching certainty is either a fool or a fraud (or both), atheists included.
@topal63:
dude, when you can puke me, or find a distinctive relationship between your dog's instinctive reactions and stuff like this f.e. - come back and we'll continue this debate.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Last edited by S3v3N (2009-04-04 14:45:10)
I don't have a God shaped hole, but God is sure in hell making a hole in my bank account.
Spring Harvest, a religion annoyance has now taken over Butlins, the organisers didn't want the arcade to stay open, so for two weeks, I'm out of work (sept for possibly half a week holiday pay).
Butlins gets something like 6 million to let them do this, but because the arcade isn't owned by them, we get none of that.
Edit: I love wiki
"In Week 2 at Minehead in 2003, Spring Harvest was featured on the BBC programme Songs of Praise. The first 'week' (week 1), still in Minehead, Spring Harvest was featured on both local and national news as a mystery illness spread rapidly around the event."
Mwah ha ha ha ha, I shall hope for the Norovirus
"The disease is usually self-limiting, and characterised by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; and in some cases, loss of taste. General lethargy, weakness, muscle aches, headache, and low-grade fever may occur."
Ok, maybe that's a little harsh lol (for people who don't know, the vomiting and diarrhoea happens at the same time)
Spring Harvest, a religion annoyance has now taken over Butlins, the organisers didn't want the arcade to stay open, so for two weeks, I'm out of work (sept for possibly half a week holiday pay).
Butlins gets something like 6 million to let them do this, but because the arcade isn't owned by them, we get none of that.
Edit: I love wiki
"In Week 2 at Minehead in 2003, Spring Harvest was featured on the BBC programme Songs of Praise. The first 'week' (week 1), still in Minehead, Spring Harvest was featured on both local and national news as a mystery illness spread rapidly around the event."
Mwah ha ha ha ha, I shall hope for the Norovirus
"The disease is usually self-limiting, and characterised by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; and in some cases, loss of taste. General lethargy, weakness, muscle aches, headache, and low-grade fever may occur."
Ok, maybe that's a little harsh lol (for people who don't know, the vomiting and diarrhoea happens at the same time)
Last edited by Tehremos (2009-04-04 15:44:31)
Some thoughts on the subject by others:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
--Stephen Roberts
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?
--Epicurus
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.
--Bertrand Russell
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them.
--Galileo Galilei
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
--Stephen Roberts
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?
--Epicurus
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.
--Bertrand Russell
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them.
--Galileo Galilei
If God ever wanted to carpet bomb a group of human swine as vile as the chavs that supposedly frequent that place, now would be an excellent time.Tehremos wrote:
"The disease is usually self-limiting, and characterised by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; and in some cases, loss of taste. General lethargy, weakness, muscle aches, headache, and low-grade fever may occur."
When one feels that the only entity one has to justify one's actions (or lack thereof) to is oneself, then one is a sociopath.m3thod wrote:
elborate.FEOS wrote:
And this doesn't bother anyone? Particularly the last sentence?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The comfort that any illusion of meaning to be gleaned from existence is defined by no one but yourself. Standards are your own to set, to live and die by. So long as you do not cheat yourself, you cannot be wrong.
Sounds a bit sociopathic, tbh.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Nope. Don't have one because it doesn't exist. It is a figment of your imagination. Religion is a construct of man, so this hole is the result of artificial thought patterns that have been drilled into your brain since before you were old enough to think for yourself.ATG wrote:
Do you have one?
That empty space in your heart that nothing can fill.
What comfort does the atheist offer?
What knowledge we agnostics can purvey?
These questions annoy me.
but..buh..wikipedia says that's wut it is.Uzique wrote:
Read Huxley's description of agnosticism before just reducing it down to 'religious uncertainty', that's a bit of a misnomer
Last edited by Noobpatty (2009-04-13 12:54:26)
"Gnosticism" means knowing, or 'knowledge.' It can mean a certainty in either direction. Ancient Gnostics were those who used religeon to search for knowledge or illumiunation. Agnosticism means 'not knowing.' I suppose it can also fit using the term "unknowable."
Things just seem to go better when I'm more active in my faith. Call faith delusional or a self-fulfilling prophecy...or whatever. It works for a lot of people, including me. (Then again, I tend to ignore the passing trends in a lot of modern Christianity, and stick to the basics.)
Comfort? None I guess. Why would it? This is about the truth, not comfort.ATG wrote:
What comfort does the atheist offer?
What knowledge we agnostics can purvey?
Knowledge? Socrates said: Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα. I know one thing, that I know nothing. So... that.
ƒ³
Comfort? ...how about the notion that all your power comes from within and not from some deity who hands it out in measly portions? My good friend Lowing will testify to this belief: we are all in control of our own destiny, if you want success and happiness go out and create it.oug wrote:
Comfort? None I guess. Why would it? This is about the truth, not comfort.ATG wrote:
What comfort does the atheist offer?
What knowledge we agnostics can purvey?
Knowledge? Socrates said: Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα. I know one thing, that I know nothing. So... that.
What about spiritual success?
Are you perfectly content in the knowledge that this life is all there is?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Are you perfectly content in the knowledge that this life is all there is?
Somehow, I doubt it.
I view the universe as a continuous, self-existent phenomenon. As a father with children I would have expected you of all people to marvel in the notion of your DNA living on in the form of another human being.ATG wrote:
What about spiritual success?
Are you perfectly content in the knowledge that this life is all there is?
Somehow, I doubt it.
This idea of pinning all hope on an invisible, intangible God is really for the birds.
yes i am. and knowing i've only got so much time to enjoy consciousness motivates me to experience as much as i can and surround myself with family and friends, people i enjoy and hopefully enjoy me.ATG wrote:
Are you perfectly content in the knowledge that this life is all there is?
and this is the fundamental, irreconcileable difference between athiests and spiritual people.
Well. I can only say the I have to stick with Unknowable.
We will never know, until we die.
Still; what risks just going with faith?
What risks are there is the Godless is wrong?
We will never know, until we die.
Still; what risks just going with faith?
What risks are there is the Godless is wrong?
i'm sure your god would appreciate that sentiment.ATG wrote:
Still; what risks just going with faith?
are you familiar with Pascal's wager?
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-04-13 22:32:31)
Would you respect a God who didn't value the notion of questioning what was presented before you?ATG wrote:
Well. I can only say the I have to stick with Unknowable.
We will never know, until we die.
Still; what risks just going with faith?
What risks are there is the Godless is wrong?
Your representation of religion in your posts is truly extreme. I know very few people (devout Christians or otherwise) who simply say "God's Will" and then sit back and wait for things to happen.Braddock wrote:
I view the universe as a continuous, self-existent phenomenon. As a father with children I would have expected you of all people to marvel in the notion of your DNA living on in the form of another human being.ATG wrote:
What about spiritual success?
Are you perfectly content in the knowledge that this life is all there is?
Somehow, I doubt it.
This idea of pinning all hope on an invisible, intangible God is really for the birds.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
None whatsoever.ATG wrote:
Still; what risks just going with faith?
Let me put it this way:ATG wrote:
What risks are there is the Godless is wrong?
When I die, I'd much rather be wrong about believing than be wrong about not believing.
Believe and be wrong = no consequences
Not believe and be wrong = significant consequences
It's nothing if not pragmatic.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular