The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[MasterFoot]

Being outside of time would not allow any action to take place, if "God" was outside of time, he wouldn't be able to think, move etc because everything that happens, happens ina sequence in some way, wothout time, the sequence could not take place.

 

[Mike da King]

Hrrmmm... complexity suggests designer? NO.

This false concept came about because we see the complexity of human design and infer that all complexity was similarly designed. The reality is that human design imitates the complexity that is observed in nature. We observe nature, which is complex but has no apparent designer, and we become designers.

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

Is God complex? If so, he must have been designed! Lol.

Complexity does not require a designer. The wonders of math, jax, are not acts of god. If you have one apple, and you get one more apple, you have two apples. You do not need God to explain this. The apple, however, is very complex. It still does not require a supernatural explanation.

The apple is the product of random chance. However, random chance expressed itself in the form of natural selection and survival of the fittest. This means that the apple is the result of millions of years of adaptation and improvement. This same thing is true for humans.

The complexity of any creature does not mean that it was designed. Merely that its complexity was nessesary for its survival.

 

[Cow]

What I really enjoy is Athiests who feel they're more open minded than those who believe in God. Or more importantly, that belief in God is 'blind faith' and that believing that there is absolutely no God is so different from that.
Those people make me giggle.

 

[MasterFoot]

Technically, belief in god is in a way more close minded then athiestic beliefs because it requires you to take the "Leap of Faith" In order to believe it. Thusly, a leap of faith requires no evidence and you make a close minded decision towards something, the decision may not always be close minded, but it can be sometimes. Athiesm however basses what they belive on facts, and observations, you can say that the people that state the happenings facts and observations are no different then that of religious leaders, but they aren't so, unless for some reason scientists are making things up.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

what makes me giggle is the people who think atheism entails an absolute belief that there is no god(s) despite being told constantly that that is not the case.

 

[Gideon]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
what makes me giggle is the people who think atheism entails an absolute belief that there is no god(s) despite being told constantly that that is not the case.

Bee, are you saying an atheist doesn't necessarily believe there is NO god ? Isn't that the definition of atheism though? And if someone is not sure as to whether he there is a god or not, doesn't that make him an agnostic?

Just clearing some things up for my own benefit.
-Gid

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s). As in, we don't believe God exists. This does not mean we believe he doesn't exist.

lack of belief, but not active disbelief, is known as "weak atheism". Active disbelief is known as "strong atheism". Most athiests are weak atheists. Most are strong atheists, though, with respect to specific gods, like say, Yahweh/Jesus. In those cases, there's enough evidence against the god, in the form of contradictions, to merit active disbelief.

It's a common misconception to see agnosticism as a sort of 'middle of the road' option, aka weak atheism, but it's actually nothing of the sort. Agnostics can be atheists OR theist- agnosticism and atheism refer to different things. Needless to say, I think the term "agnostic" is pretty useless.

-B

 

[princeps]

whoever alphazealot quoted seems to think that god is absolute. that cannot be, as an absolute being has no relationship to other beings and cannot be influenced by anything. such a god cannot exist in relation to anything, including man.

 

[Cow]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s). As in, we don't believe God exists. This does not mean we believe he doesn't exist.

lack of belief, but not active disbelief, is known as "weak atheism". Active disbelief is known as "strong atheism". Most athiests are weak atheists. Most are strong atheists, though, with respect to specific gods, like say, Yahweh/Jesus. In those cases, there's enough evidence against the god, in the form of contradictions, to merit active disbelief.

It's a common misconception to see agnosticism as a sort of 'middle of the road' option, aka weak atheism, but it's actually nothing of the sort. Agnostics can be atheists OR theist- agnosticism and atheism refer to different things. Needless to say, I think the term "agnostic" is pretty useless.

-B

So basically you're telling me i'm wrong because I operate on an accepted definition of Atheism?
"a·the·ism n.

1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality. "

Nevermind the fact that you just said
not believing in any form of a God is different from believing they don't exist..
If you don't believe in something, how can you not not believe in it? There is no middle ground in believe or don't believe-- thats called uncertainty, and its agnosticism.
I don't know what all this strong or weak atheism BS is, nor do I know the morons behind it. There is no 'weak' vs 'strong' in disbelief. Its Yes or No.
But, fine. I'm wrong as per your definition of atheism. I'll concede that.
I'm fully aware you're not prepared to change your mind, but I don't figure i'll ever convince you of a thing, and you could assume similarly of me. I'm sure that means you'll call me ignorant, as this is the way arguments that try to end themselves quickly work, and I suppose thats your prerogative. Though lets see if you can't surprise me.

oh, by the by, an agnostic is defined as someone who believes there is no proof for or against God.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Do I believe you're a male? Nope. Do I believe you're not a male? Nope. I have no beliefs regarding your gender.

Likewise, just because I don't believe god(s) exists does not mean I believe god(s) do not exist. Any time you try to talk about my thoughts on the matter and you start it with "You believe..." you're wrong.

For definitions of "atheism", pardon me if I take issue with a definition that defines atheism as "immorality". The people who define what a group moniker should mean are the people within that group. That being said, perhaps you'd like to see what atheists actually think on the subject?

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Asssuming you're a Christian, how would you feel if I defined "Christian" as "annoying person who believes in God because they have an inferiority complex"? Would that be acceptable? No, because YOU define your own beliefs, not other people. Likewise, the majority of atheists are "weak atheists", so defining atheism solely as strong atheism is a bit silly.

The real thing that makes me giggle, though, is your idea that atheism requires some sort of faith. that's a real funny one.

-B

 

[Mike da King]

The definition of "agnosticism" from BBT's previous link is basically "belief that metaphysical truths are unknowable."

How about defining "stongaicism" (not really a word) as "belief that things that have no supportive or negative evidence may or may not be true?" Would you proclaim that you are a stongaic? I wouldn't, as the logical solution is to ignore unsupported claims anyhow; if I declare that I am logical, then it follows that I am stongaic and agnostic and atheistic. By saying that I am atheistic, I am implying agnosticism and stongaicism.

Agnostic is a useless term.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

stongaicism is pretty pointless. "Believe something may or may not be true"? That makes it pretty meaningless.

 

[NJE789]

Meaningless, perhaps, to an obvlivious person

I think the point of stongaicism is to not close your mind to the possibility of what you think you've come to know as fact really isn't, something you of all people, B, probably should try sometime.

For some, there's an even more important reason for stongaicism. Some people believe when you die, if you hold a strong belief of what will happen to you when you die, that's the reality you'll find yourself in once you reach the mental plane, where your beliefs can completely cloud your perception because your interpreter part of consciousness will twist reality to make it fit in with your beliefs. The point here is to not believe what will happen to prevent this.

When you dream, you can observe this first-hand if you're lucid(aware you're in a dream) during the dream. If you believe something will happen, it probably will. If you think gravity's holding you down, you won't be able to fly in a dream. Same thing goes for going through solid objects in a dream.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Uh....I do practice stongaicism, as does everyone in the world. Which is why I considered it meaningless. Honestly, try asking someone: Do you believe my hair may or may not be brown? The answer will be yes every time. Of course they don't know, since there's no supporting or negative evidence. I don't think even irrational people ever look at a completely random concept and not think "This may or may not be true". It's a ridiculous term.

 

[BlackLightning1]

I have come to join this topic, personally i dont belive in God, as the whole idea, seems flawed, multiple contodictions, no actual proof, i could go on.
can someone fill me in on the discussion so far

 

[Crono]

Nope!

 

[MyHair IsOn Fire]

Heres a bet for you christian folk

If any of you can prove to me that god does exist, I will personally walk to your home, and deliver you a million dollars. No using quotes from the bible, either...have fun kids

 

[AnalogBoy]

wow

I wont even begin on how arrogant, illogical, or immature this last post is, this debate title suggests the debate is actually for the mature...
so on that note,
I'd like to ask, out of curiousity, BlackLightning1 what he considers the controdiction in belief of a God (and if he meant specifically the Judeo-Christian God, what makes it a controdiction?)

 

[Figgis Walks]

Wisdidiocy

Wisdidiocy is a new word I made up just for you, MyHair IsOn Fire. See if you can guess what it means.

Belief in a Judeo-Christian God does not require proof. In fact its own doctrine suggests that if proof existed, religion would defeat its own purpose and become, for the most part, useless. Religion would be about living under the dictatorship of God, rather than in search of one's faith in him.

Since Judeo-Christian doctrine denies the necessity of proof, you can't require Jews or Christians (or members of any similar religion about which I am too uninformed for humility to permit inclusion here) to have proof to believe it themselves, nor can you disprove it through any Earthly means. Any belief based on an absence of proof is not falsifiable -- that is to say that it cannot be proven or disproven -- and thus you cannot hold anyone following that belief to any burden of proof on the matter.

Go ahead and be an atheist, (like me,) but don't mock people with their inabilities to prove beliefs that by definition claim to be unprovable.

Please stop talking. You lower the aggregate IQ of the internet.

If any of you can prove to me that Tinkerbell does exist, I will personally walk to your home, and deliver you a Swiss Roll Cake. No using quotes from Peter Pan, either...have fun kid.

Until then, I shall taunt you mercilessly.

 

[Nall]

[text deleted][Accidental double post]

 

[Nall]

I choose to believe in God. I don't wish to take the chance of believing **** doesn't exist. As far as religion goes. I hate it. Religion is basically a set of rules to keep people in line. And a lot of religious people try to force their religion on others, which is absolutely pointless. Some athiests however can be just as bad, because they slam those who believe in God or have a religion to believe in, and even try to force athiesism on others. Normally I'd say I was a christian, but perhaps born-again, believer of Jesus Christ, who accepts Jesus as his savior is a better title. Whatever you people believe, is your decision. Not mine. But if you try to decide for other people, then you're going to far. In this message I clearly stated I hated religion yet believe in God, which almost doesn't make sense. But if religion, like I said, is a set of rules, to keep people in line, then what I believe isn't religion.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Originally posted by Nall
As far as religion goes. I hate it. Religion is basically a set of rules to keep people in line.

Quite correct. And it looks like it's doing a mighty fine job controlling you with that "Hell" threat.

I choose to believe in God. I don't wish to take the chance of believing **** doesn't exist.

 

[Nall]

Control? What control? I just chose to believe in God. That's all. You can't tell me what controls me and what doesn't. I said I chose to believe in God because I don't want to take the chances of going to ****. I didn't say I chose to follow rules given to me by religions so I could avoid going to ****.

 

[NJE789]

Originally posted by Nall
Control? What control? I just chose to believe in God. That's all. You can't tell me what controls me and what doesn't. I said I chose to believe in God because I don't want to take the chances of going to ****. I didn't say I chose to follow rules given to me by religions so I could avoid going to ****.

..So you don't have to follow any rules, but you do have to believe in this god to avoid going to ****? If you're beliefs are true, then everyone that doesn't believe in your god's going to ****, just for not believing. ..Your god's effing demonic. ..but if that's ok with you, then whatever..

..or are you actually saying you'll believe in a god, but you won't follow the rules of the religion, and somehow you won't goto **** this way?

..I'm glad my spiritual beliefs aren't onea' dos f-ed up fear-based religions, 'cuz every last of them's just flat-out ********[in my opinion ].

 

[Johnny5]

bumble bee tuna i have a question are you aetheist? if you are theres nothing wrong with that that's your choice, one we all should respect but saying that it controls nall makes you sound like an idoit nothing in his post even remolty sounded like control. next time think about what you say.

 

[Crono]

You heard the man, Bee. Think about what you say.

 

[Nall]

Well, does the Bible state anywhere that you'll go to **** if you break their rules? no. Any believer in God is a sinner. There's no such thing as a human not sinning. I'm a sinner, but I'm not out there doing sinful cold hearted things. But I'm also not telling myself "I'm gonna follow every rule on the bible, or I'm going to ****." I just go out there and enjoy life. Not saying I don't sometimes hate my life, though.

 

[Johnny5]

i know i should have sad this a long time ago but sometimes i am ********(yes i cant tell a lie) i believe in god but sometimes i question it like the fact one ultimate being made everything, yes i was raised by Christian parents but when i talk to sirus he makes really good points but in the end there is no way that you can prove he is real or not all we really have is our opinion so i will just keep on questioning.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

ok, thinking about it....yup. you're being controlled.

The leaders of the religion want you to believe in it.
To coerce you into believing it, they invented the idea of hell to frighten you and make you want to believe.
You believe because you are afraid of ****. In other words, their plan worked like a charm and they managed to control your beliefs by inventing h-e-double-hockey-sticks.

oh, and actually...

Well, does the Bible state anywhere that you'll go to **** if you break their rules?

Yes, yes it does. It conveniently adds that if you believe in the religion, of course, you can get your Get out of **** Free Card.

-B

 

[Nall]

Before I even heard the word ****, I believed in God. I just look at **** as a reminder to not forget about God. Both athiest, and believers make a good point. What most of them don't understand is there is no proof of God's existance, or proof that he doesn't exist. And whatever evidence that can prove evolution is probably false. It could've been part of God's creation, and God's way of saying "Are you gonna believe a bunch of scientists, or are you going to believe in me?" And I have never once in these posts admit to being controlled. And I still won't. Like I said before. I choose to believe, not because some religion told me to. And I also admit of fearing ****, which doesn't mean I'm under control.

 

[Lumbro]

Before I even heard the word ****, I believed in God.

What, were you raised in a 3rd world country? Deep in the jungle or something? Please, like you remember the first time you heard the word **** or when you started believing in God. It's possible, but from the way you talk about it I'd be willing to bet money that you were raised Christian from birth.

What most of them don't understand is there is no proof of God's existance, or proof that he doesn't exist.

Well, they can't both be right. Here's a list of a slew of other things that can't be proven to exist or not-exist: vampires, leprechauns, unicorms, chimeras, radioactive monkeys, dragons, reptilian koala sock monsters, or that dimension where all the missing socks go. What is likely, not what is possible, should be the driving force behind belief.

And whatever evidence that can prove evolution is probably false. It could've been part of God's creation, and God's way of saying "Are you gonna believe a bunch of scientists, or are you going to believe in me?"

Basically you've just stuck your fingers in your ears and blown raspberries. There's nothing that can be said that could ever argue with the stance "It doesn't matter what you say, you're wrong." Brilliant.

And I have never once in these posts admit to being controlled. And I still won't. Like I said before. I choose to believe, not because some religion told me to. And I also admit of fearing ****, which doesn't mean I'm under control.

Well of course you wouldn't KNOW you were being controlled, because then you would get out. You think people who respond to advertising think they're being controlled? The best slave thinks he's free.

 

[Johnny5]

actually a raido active monkey could exist!!!

 

[Crono]

Johnny, that made me laugh, because I could never have imagined anything to ambiguously stupid.

 

[GoronMoron]

BBT, **** does not exist to keep the "good little Catholics" in line.

**** is reserved for those who commit a serious crime and are not sorry. This would include serial killers and psychopaths. However, anybody (and by anybody I include non-Catholics) can be saved even if they have the smallest seed of true sorrow because of it.

They, however, can't just get off scot-free, as you all seem to assume. Sin is like a fly in the ointment; it makes a soul impure. Naturally, it must be cleansed. Is it going to be a painless, second-long period of time. No, not at all. Ever heard of purgatory?

"But the reason it was created was to give the Church more money!" you might cry. Nope...they took the right knowledge and used in the wrong way. The Bible (yes, a credible source on MATTERS OF FAITH) states that a "cleansing fire" is applied before Heaven is reached. Elsewhere in the Bible are instances of extreme pain before even seeing God. The Church was corrupt at that time, I'll admit it. It has changed now for the better. Purgatory is painful, as you are now feeling the results of your own sin, which is cleaning your soul, wringing it dry of any impurities. But, true prayers sent from the heart can shorten the time people are kept in Purgatory.

In conclusion, **** does not force anyone to be brainwashed and mindlessly following doctrines. If you are a normal, well-adjusted human, or even one who needs help, you can be saved. **** is only for those with no concious, no morality, no humanity.

I await any reply, positive or negative. Please ask about anything that annoys you, confuses you, or, God-forbid, even intrigues you.

 

[Johnny5]

I'VE BEEN BANNED.

Just kidding. But Crono did just give me a warning! Ouch...

 

[Omnipotence]

I didn't read the first post, just skimmed through this page, my feelings on religion are rather simple.

Its created by men, you can see this because in christianity there is blatant hatred for homosexuals, gay bashing. How they should be killed. Also Christianity wasn't intended to be practiced in church, just another thing made up by the pope or whoever wanted extra money. Just another plot to use religion to manipulate others. Also, the pope(who is supposedly the closest to God) used the christians to fight a holy war for him. Religion has been used as a tool of the 'devil' more than it has been used for any good. The spanish conquistadors, the Roman's persecution of the Christians, etc.

 

[Nall]

Omni. You've got good points. But I have to argue with you. Christians and other religious people hate gays. And what they're doing is wrong. I will say this, from what I understand, being gay is not a sin, but having sex with someone of the same sex is, because that's not what we were made, or born for. but sex alone, without marriage is also a sin. Masturbation, I know, couldn't possibly be a sin, it's purpose is to relieve you of sexual frustration, or desperation, if you're not ready for sex, or can't find a girl/boy who will have sex with you. And people, including christians still have sex without marriage. So what I'm saying is, christians aren't doing what the bible told them to. They're choosing to hate gays.

 

[Omnipotence]

Let me go into detail with this then.

I didn't want to, but I was waiting for someone to say something.

Look, first thing, homosexuality IS natural, its even been identified in animals, yes rover can be gay, yes your pitbull manly dog could want to hump other male dogs. Either way homosexuality exists. It is natural, a birth defect perhaps, yes. Should it be considered a sin to have a birth defect? No, because if that were the case, well I believe we'd all be like Adolf Hitler.

The point I am trying to make is, no one is a sin for what they are, no one can be evil, people can do evil acts, but no one is purely bad or evil. No one is purely good either, people may do good things, it doesn't matter to me, I believe everyone falls inbetween the spectrum of good and bad.

If god condemns us for such things as our sexual preference, then you've discovered why I formed my own religion(no not a cult, only I follow it). With that said I think my point has gotten across.

 

[beefbutcher88]

Originally posted by Omnipotence
Should it be considered a sin to have a birth defect? No, because if that were the case, well I believe we'd all be like Adolf Hitler.

You just contradicted yourself. I thought no one is purely good or bad ? And it's not good to make generalizations like that either. Hitler wanted to make Germany the nicest place in the world by taking out everyone he didn't like. The first part is good, but the second is evil. This brings up the question of whether the end justifies the means. Hitler wanted to acheive a good end (although whether it is really good or not is entirely debatable in another way). He wasn't stupid. He didn't just kill Jews because he felt like it. ****, I'm a Jew, and I can see what Hitler was trying to do. People like to be with others similar to them. And Hitler was the biggest German nationalist who ever lived. He took Germany's loss in WWI as a personal insult that he never forgot. That's why he enjoyed beating the crap out of France so much, because France took a dump on Germany's head with the Treaty of Versailles. But this is all very off-topic.

There's no such thing as "natural". "Natural" means living, or coming from nature, right? And everything that's "artificial" or "un-natural" was created by people, right? So that means that people are natural, and that all they create is natural too. That means that everything is natural. And hence the term loses its meaning.

I am not religious. Religion was important in letting civilization reach the point that it's at today. But now it's just a pest.