Why I'm not an Atheist

[Oasis_S]

I wonder if animals can be possessed by demons too. That could explain homosexuality in animals.

 

[john!]

I don't see the contradiction. Without god, people are good or bad. However, "god" can tamper with good people and make them bad "artificially" was what was said.

then you used the word "regardless" incorrectly. you meant "people are good or evil without god"

So they have no biblical backing into what they are doing?

eh, there are a few old testament passages that can be interpreted into condemning homosexuality. not a significantly strong backing, though.

You made the argument earlier that all religion can augment all secular morality, so what this just showed is that what you said is false unless you disobey your holy book by replacing secular morals with them.

so by "all religion" you meant "one person who believes everything written in the bible"? if not, what did you mean?

You still haven't answered it.

i can't and neither can you.

I'm treating you like a christian apologist because you're acting like one. And I've already said that people aren't just agnostic. Either you're theist agnostic or atheist agnostic. You can't be unsure if you believe. Ask yourself if you believe. If you can't say yes, the answer is no. This is easier than you make it seem.

we've already established that your knowledge of epistemological positions is poor. you think BABIES are atheists, for ****'s sake.

Okay, so people are stupid. Why do we have gay animals? They can't even act except based on their instinctual needs, and yet male animals are courting other male animals?

Because I mean, shouldn't Christianity be rebelling against this too?

i'm pretty sure all christians believe that animals do not have souls.

Okay.

Wouldn't this also mean nobody is a christian because no one can truly follow gods word?

it means nobody is a perfect christian, a fact which they readily acknowledge.

Except not christianity. Also, if omniscient = knows everything & = knows future, then wouldn't that mean it = no choice?

like i said, it seems like it would, but christian apologists have a number of answers to that dilemma.

 

[Chuee]

eh, there are a few old testament passages that can be interpreted into condemning homosexuality. not a significantly strong backing, though.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

we've already established that your knowledge of epistemological positions is poor. you think BABIES are atheists, for ****'s sake..

Either way they aren't born believing in God.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

eh, there are a few old testament passages that can be interpreted into condemning homosexuality. not a significantly strong backing, though.

See, even if I didn't already know that this is flat-out incorrect, I still wouldn't believe it for a second because every single large mainstream christian denomination is against homosexuality.

we've already established that your knowledge of epistemological positions is poor. you think BABIES are atheists, for ****'s sake.

Just to clarify before I get in to this...

Theism = belief in god.
Atheism = not theism.

So with that in mind, did you believe in the Gykiosage before I mentioned it to you? No, of course not. Do you know how I know this? Because you didn't have any knowledge of the concept of the Gykiosage. Similarly, newborns have no understanding of the concept of god – how could they? They don't have an understanding of anything. As such, it is completely impossible for them to believe in god at that point in time. Atheism truly is the default position in such a case: a lack of a belief in god.

like i said, it seems like it would, but christian apologists have a number of answers to that dilemma.

Not satisfactory ones. The main answer involves ignoring the dilemma altogether by claiming that all-knowing does not include the future.

 

[Arcansi]

it means nobody is a perfect christian, a fact which they readily acknowledge.

Wouldn't it mean that it's impossible to be a perfect christian? E.G. Jesus was not one, God isn't one, etc.

 

[john!]

Just to clarify before I get in to this...

Theism = belief in god.
Atheism = not theism.

So with that in mind, did you believe in the Gykiosage before I mentioned it to you? No, of course not. Do you know how I know this? Because you didn't have any knowledge of the concept of the Gykiosage. Similarly, newborns have no understanding of the concept of god – how could they? They don't have an understanding of anything. As such, it is completely impossible for them to believe in god at that point in time. Atheism truly is the default position in such a case: a lack of a belief in god.

this was the main topic for a long time in this thread. you could go back and read what i have to say on the subject if you like.

using "atheist" as an umbrella term to cover theological noncognitivists like babies, and then claiming that this means YOUR atheism (which involves going online and attempting to actively disprove theism) is the "default position" which has no BOP and requires no belief, is ignorant at best and a cold-hearted lie at worst.

Wouldn't it mean that it's impossible to be a perfect christian? E.G. Jesus was not one, God isn't one, etc.

well seeing as "christian" means "following the teachings of christ", i think it's reasonable to say that christ was the perfect christian, especially if you believe in his divinity.

 

[Arcansi]

well seeing as "christian" means "following the teachings of christ", i think it's reasonable to say that christ was the perfect christian, especially if you believe in his divinity.

Wether divine or not, it is logically impossible to be both X and Y at the same time, or do both X and Y at the same time, if X and Y are hypocritical.

Christ could not have followed all his own teachings if some are hypocritical.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

this was the main topic for a long time in this thread. you could go back and read what i have to say on the subject if you like.

using "atheist" as an umbrella term to cover theological noncognitivists like babies, and then claiming that this means YOUR atheism (which involves going online and attempting to actively disprove theism) is the "default position" which has no BOP and requires no belief, is ignorant at best and a cold-hearted lie at worst.

Hey buddy? Noncognitivists are atheists. According to the modern definition of the word, people who don't understand or know of the concept of god are atheists, because they do not believe in something they have no understanding of. They are atheists. End of story. And for the purposes of the "all babies are atheists, therefore atheism is the default position", that's all that's necessary.

And if you want to claim that "my atheism" has "going online and attempting to actively disprove theism" as a tenet of belief (as opposed to, you know, a ****ing hobby), then you're more insane than I thought. I don't do this because I'm an atheist. I do this because I enjoy doing this. I'm not conflating "their atheism" with "my atheism". It's not like conflating, say, a fundamentalist pentecostal with a nondenominational christian. We're both atheists, and as such have the exact same position on the singular issue that atheism says anything about. I'm just an atheist with a chip on my shoulder and a large amount of free time.

 

[john!]

Wether divine or not, it is logically impossible to be both X and Y at the same time, or do both X and Y at the same time, if X and Y are hypocritical.

Christ could not have followed all his own teachings if some are hypocritical.

i said that the bible was self-contradictory, not christ's teachings.

 

[Arcansi]

i said that the bible was self-contradictory, not christ's teachings.

Isn't the bible gods word, which would essentially be a better but harder to understand version of Christ's teachings?

 

[GwJ]

then you used the word "regardless" incorrectly. you meant "people are good or evil without god"

I meant people are good or bad without regards to a higher deity if it exists or not. I then stated that peoples' morals can be changed for the better or worse when you stick a god in there.

eh, there are a few old testament passages that can be interpreted into condemning homosexuality. not a significantly strong backing, though.

Well then a good number of Christians have the scripture wrong then, I guess.

so by "all religion" you meant "one person who believes everything written in the bible"? if not, what did you mean?

I was going by what YOU said, not me. I'm assuming by all religion you meant ALL RELIGION.

i can't and neither can you.

Yes you can, and it's not my job to answer it.

we've already established that your knowledge of epistemological positions is poor. you think BABIES are atheists, for ****'s sake.

When did I say that?

i'm pretty sure all christians believe that animals do not have souls.

What does having a soul have to do with it?

it means nobody is a perfect christian, a fact which they readily acknowledge.

There's a SERIOUS PROBLEM with your religion if parts of it are completely immoral though.

like i said, it seems like it would, but christian apologists have a number of answers to that dilemma.

But we're asking you.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

In regards to the OP: Personally I don't believe that the variety and beauty in our world could have been produced due to chance, any less than a beautiful painting or a complex machine could be produced by chance. Sure, you can call beauty subjective or whatever, sure this is not a hard proof for some. But it is one reason I believe in an Ultimate Designer, and nothing will change that. Plus, it is nice to be able to thank someone for all the things I have.

 

[Falconv1.0]

In regards to the OP: Personally I don't believe that the variety and beauty in our world could have been produced due to chance, any less than a beautiful painting or a complex machine could be produced by chance. Sure, you can call beauty subjective or whatever, sure this is not a hard proof for some. But it is one reason I believe in an Ultimate Designer, and nothing will change that. Plus, it is nice to be able to thank someone for all the things I have.

That's a pretty weak argument. I mean when you essentially have infinite chances, don't you think there's a good chance at least one thing of beauty will be created in that cluster ****?

But hey that's just me using some form of logic instead of wishful thinking, and no, I'm not claiming it is ILLOGICAL to believe in a god or to not believe in one but that's some seriously weak grounds to believe ****in' anything. What if there is a God and he didn't personally create us he just created the forces that lead to us coming into being? Oh, no, he has to be personally invested in this planet? Sure. And what about all the other stars n ****, those are just failures? Was he just bored?

 

[Suntan Luigi]

That's a pretty weak argument. I mean when you essentially have infinite chances, don't you think there's a good chance at least one thing of beauty will be created in that cluster ****?

But hey that's just me using some form of logic instead of wishful thinking, and no, I'm not claiming it is ILLOGICAL to believe in a god or to not believe in one but that's some seriously weak grounds to believe ****in' anything. What if there is a God and he didn't personally create us he just created the forces that lead to us coming into being? Oh, no, he has to be personally invested in this planet? Sure. And what about all the other stars n ****, those are just failures? Was he just bored?

Our universe is too perfect to have come about by chance I believe. One way to think of the universe is a book. I don't believe a book can be written due to chance. Sometimes when I see the sky at sunset I wish I knew how to paint. In those cases the sky is the painting I marvel at, and God is the painter. It just makes sense to me. I also believe that God has a reason for doing what He does. What do we know? Who says having more than one Earth is a good thing? These are just my reasons for what I believe in, I don't mean to be attacking anyone else's.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Our universe is too perfect to have come about by chance I believe. One way to think of the universe is a book. I don't believe a book can be written due to chance. Sometimes when I see the sky at sunset I wish I knew how to paint. In those cases the sky is the painting I marvel at, and God is the painter. It just makes sense to me. I also believe that God has a reason for doing what He does. What do we know? Who says having more than one Earth is a good thing? These are just my reasons for what I believe in, I don't mean to be attacking anyone else's.

I don't think you're attacking anyone's view but you definitely did not in anyway refute my argument right there.

There is no positive or negative evidence about the existence of a God. Period. You think the universe is perfect, well what the **** does an "unperfect" one look like to you? Have you seen the entire universe and seen how every detail was exactly how it should be?

Wait why am I am asking more questions that won't be answered.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I don't think you're attacking anyone's view but you definitely did not in anyway refute my argument right there.

There is no positive or negative evidence about the existence of a God. Period. You think the universe is perfect, well what the **** does an "unperfect" one look like to you? Have you seen the entire universe and seen how every detail was exactly how it should be?

Wait why am I am asking more questions that won't be answered.

By "perfect" I mean orderly and having pleasing aesthetic qualities. An "unperfect" universe would be chaotic and ugly, if such a place could even exist. Are you suggesting that order and beauty can arise from chance?

 

[Falconv1.0]

By "perfect" I mean orderly and having pleasing aesthetic qualities. An "unperfect" universe would be chaotic and ugly, if such a place could even exist. Are you suggesting that order and beauty can arise from chance?

I'm not suggesting I'm pretty explicitly stating if there's a chance than something can be created, give it enough chances and it'll probably come into existence. You know, like, take a ****ton of people and have them randomly type words, eventually you'll get something worth reading. Obviously the chance of it happening is very small but are you going to say THERE IS NO CHANCE? You understand the Earth is like a specific little point on a single grain of sand amid a ****ing desert right? So what exactly does "orderly" mean when there's plenty of explosions and places where there's absolutely no chance of life ever happening. You know, the huge vast majority of what we've seen so far. Giant space rocks fly around and crash into things, some scientists think there's a small chance one of those could crash into Erf and blow us up! I really think you're just trying to justify your beliefs here rather than actually coming up with any sort of rational conclusion based off what we can actually see and understand.

But no, apparently because there's one planet that supports our existence, EVERYTHING IS PERFECT.

 

[GwJ]

Luigi, if I may ask, under what jurisdiction are you to judge that the universe is too "perfect"? Exactly how much DO you know about the universe? Enough to make that judgment?

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I'm not suggesting I'm pretty explicitly stating if there's a chance than something can be created, give it enough chances and it'll probably come into existence. You know, like, take a ****ton of people and have them randomly type words, eventually you'll get something worth reading. Obviously the chance of it happening is very small but are you going to say THERE IS NO CHANCE? You understand the Earth is like a specific little point on a single grain of sand amid a ****ing desert right? So what exactly does "orderly" mean when there's plenty of explosions and places where there's absolutely no chance of life ever happening. You know, the huge vast majority of what we've seen so far. Giant space rocks fly around and crash into things, some scientists think there's a small chance one of those could crash into Erf and blow us up! I really think you're just trying to justify your beliefs here rather than actually coming up with any sort of rational conclusion based off what we can actually see and understand.

But no, apparently because there's one planet that supports our existence, EVERYTHING IS PERFECT.

Like I said before, I'm not giving a hard proof. This is only a rationalization. I just believe that chance is just too inadequate. If the whole world population, more than 7 billion, were to type random letters for their entire lives nonstop they would produce no more than a coherent sentence or two. Even when you compare Earth with the rest of the universe, the probabilities are that much more astronomical, especially when you see how complex all the life on Earth is. At least that's the way I see it.

Luigi, if I may ask, under what jurisdiction are you to judge that the universe is too "perfect"? Exactly how much DO you know about the universe? Enough to make that judgment?

I know that there are things in the universe that are orderly and beautiful, that is what base my judgement on. This is what I mean by "perfect".

 

[GwJ]

That wasn't an adequate answer. Just answer it plainly.

 

[john!]

just because some things in the universe are beautiful, that doesn't mean that the entire universe is beautiful or even perfect.

you can't deny that our world has some ugly things.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

That wasn't an adequate answer. Just answer it plainly.

What do you mean by that? Didn't I answer your question?

 

[Falconv1.0]

Like I said before, I'm not giving a hard proof. This is only a rationalization. I just believe that chance is just too inadequate. If the whole world population, more than 7 billion, were to type random letters for their entire lives nonstop they would produce no more than a coherent sentence or two.

I'm sure you're basing this off of some kind of cold hard facts and not just saying bull**** right?

Also, you say only a coherent sentence or two, doesn't that seem somewhat comparable to Earth being one planet capable of life amid a huuuuge amount that don't?

Yeah I think I'm done with this Mickey Mouse ****. These answers you give are just "oh derp well I think this so it's this". Not, you know, anything that can even kinda be supported with real facts or reasoning.

 

[GwJ]

What do you mean by that? Didn't I answer your question?

No, you didn't. Read it again.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I'm sure you're basing this off of some kind of cold hard facts and not just saying bull**** right?

Also, you say only a coherent sentence or two, doesn't that seem somewhat comparable to Earth being one planet capable of life amid a huuuuge amount that don't?

Yeah I think I'm done with this Mickey Mouse ****. These answers you give are just "oh derp well I think this so it's this". Not, you know, anything that can even kinda be supported with real facts or reasoning.

Ugh. I did not come into this thread with the intention of arguing/debating. If I wanted to debate I would have made a post in the debate hall (which I may do later on). Although I admit it is very hard not to get sucked into a debate on such a controversial issue.

Also, the two are not comparable. It'd be like comparing a grain of sand with all the deserted in the world. The Earth itself is like a small universe. Words are words. Heck, just look at the brain, thought to be the most complex thing in existence. Even that by itself can't be explained by chance, in my opinion.

 

[Oasis_S]

Always thought "god did it" was a very ugly explanation for everything. Where's the MYSTERY. The romance.

 

[GwJ]

If you didn't want to come in here with the intention to debate/argue, why'd you say something like "the universe is too perfect to be made naturally"? Even john didn't resort to that kind of argument.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I was mainly trying to say that when I see a beautiful thing, I like to think that someone was responsible for it. Maybe I'm wrong, I could be. It could be due to chance. But I don't see much meaning in chance.

 

[john!]

no offense SL, but it's extremely difficult for me to show atheists why they are wrong because they have a natural tendency to assume that i use reasoning like "there must be a god because the universe is beautiful". i often have to spend hours explaining why i'm not arguing FOR god and that my personal beliefs are irrelevant.

 

[GwJ]

I was mainly trying to say that when I see a beautiful thing, I like to think that someone was responsible for it. Maybe I'm wrong, I could be. It could be due to chance. But I don't see much meaning in chance.

That's a TERRIBLE line of thinking, just saying. Things we perceive as beautiful do not have to be man-made. If you disagree, prove it logically.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

That's a TERRIBLE line of thinking, just saying. Things we perceive as beautiful do not have to be man-made. If you disagree, prove it logically.

I think you misunderstood: I think beautiful things that are made by someone, e.g. man, show that beautiful things that are not made by man must be made by someone else, e.g. God, and not chance.

 

[Falconv1.0]

That's a TERRIBLE line of thinking, just saying. Things we perceive as beautiful do not have to be man-made. If you disagree, prove it logically.

I'm hoping there's a God and I hope he thinks we're all ugly as hell.

._.

Also, hey what's your case against ugly things then? Hm? HMMMM?

 

[GwJ]

So, is this accurately defining your claim?

Anything humans perceive as beautiful is created by an intelligent being?

 

[Suntan Luigi]

My claim is that beauty can't be the result of chance.

 

[Falconv1.0]

My head just fell off and I am now stumbling around looking for it.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Lol, whatever dude. If you can show me something beautiful that is the result of chance, maybe I'll reconsider my position. Write a book by hitting random letters, paint a picture with random brush-strokes, etc.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

In regards to the OP: Personally I don't believe that the variety and beauty in our world could have been produced due to chance, any less than a beautiful painting or a complex machine could be produced by chance. Sure, you can call beauty subjective or whatever, sure this is not a hard proof for some. But it is one reason I believe in an Ultimate Designer, and nothing will change that. Plus, it is nice to be able to thank someone for all the things I have.

Cool, blind subjective faith. @_@ Next.

Lol, whatever dude. If you can show me something beautiful that is the result of chance, maybe I'll reconsider my position. Write a book by hitting random letters, paint a picture with random brush-strokes, etc.

Are you kidding me? Didn't you just say beauty is subjective? And are you saying there are no beautiful happen-chance things out there to you?

 

[GwJ]

My claim is that beauty can't be the result of chance.

Ok, now support it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Lol, whatever dude. If you can show me something beautiful that is the result of chance, maybe I'll reconsider my position. Write a book by hitting random letters, paint a picture with random brush-strokes, etc.

This is the best thread ever, would read again.

 

[Teran]

Everyone take a deep breath.