i have to admit, i too find this very conversation entertaining. i am fully aware the existence of God relies on faith, something i admit to not having. but think about this..
an absence of evidence is proof of nothing.
Cool, I have an invisible demon that spins the hands round on my watch that I can sell you then.
Why is the burden of proof on anybody else's shoulders? Honestly, who determined that disbelief is a natural starting point. Moreover, since when was atheism a position of disbelief? As I understand it, atheists believe that there is no god just as theists believe that there is one. Aren't you simply taking the opposite side in a debate and applying the same lack of evidence to draw a comparably irrelevant conclusion. I find the atheist POV every bit as self-righteous and condescending as the theist's apparent faith in an invisible maker.
As I see things, atheists are every bit as dogmatic as theists. They rely on an absence of proof to support their position, just as theists cling to the notion that their position can't be disproven. The very dialogue is absurd. From my point of view, an atheist's conclusions are every bit as unreasonable as your average theist.
I am assuming you read my discussion about the invisible demon and the watch. In it, I did my best to explain exactly why the burden of proof when discussing invisible, intangible and largely (if not entirely) unknowable supernatural things is upon the person believing in them instead of the person with the blank slate or disbelieving stance. I tried pretty hard to show why it is not reasonable to start with belief and then disprove it and to also show that that isn't how we most effectively operate in our daily lives usually. I also tried to detail why Atheists aren't in need of 100% absolute certainty in their disbelief. We generally expect people to have good reason(s) for believing whatever they do, whether it is about gender equality, racial equality, stances on murder, etc. We also expect to be able to ask people why they believe something and then want them to provide supporting evidence, right? If a person was accused of a crime and said that an invisible, angel told them to do it we don't tend to start by believing them and then ask people to disprove that there wasn't an angel that made them do it. We start by being skeptical and placing the burden of proof upon the person who wants us to believe the supernatural. That's all I'm trying to convey. The burden, indeed, is theirs. I dare say that we widely agree as a society that the strongest beliefs are those which are supported by the strongest and most readily provable evidence. Have I clarified or does this part continue to lose you in you in the argument?
I did read what you wrote, and honestly, you often lose me. You start going into these odd stories (which always paint believers either as crazy or a criminal) trying to draw parallels with religious beliefs. I can't believe I'm even going to go here for a second, but... your invisible demon analogy reeks of bias right from the get-go (and this isn't even getting into the specifics). Here's why: you are drawing parallels to someone who has a spiritual belief and someone who is schizophrenic and seeing demons on watches. You know, deep down inside, that this is an attempt to sway the discussion, but it doesn't do that because it's not relate-able at all and is so odd. Moreover, even if your analogy was worth discussing, your acting as though a believer in God sees God, and the other does not. In normal terms, neither party sees a physical manifestation of God, yet one believes based on their own observations, their own research and perhaps their environment. One may decide to remain undecided. And the atheist decides to believe there is no God.
Later on here, on the burden of proof issue, you start comparing believers to criminals. Saying that the burden of proof should fall on the believer like it does the person who committed a crime because of an invisible angel. Seriously, man? Maybe you should go see someone.
I semi-agree with blueandwhite. You don't understand, and clearly won't understand that a theist does not "owe" an atheist any proof. It's not a crime scene or a doctor's office, man. They owe you nothing, other than to maybe occasionally say there's absolutely nothing gained from being an atheist. That's scientific if you're making the decision based on risk, reward and how time began.
Moreover, I'm tired of this "Atheists aren't in need of 100% certainty in their disbelief".... if you don't have full fledged "belief" that there is no God... why not just be agnostic? I've said this repetitively now. You're trying to say you're not that different from an agnostic. That's not true. An agnostic is not believing in the absence of God or spiritual higher power. They say, "I don't know". You, and atheists in general... don't. You guys say you do know with certainty there is no God.
I am assuming you read my discussion about the invisible demon and the watch. In it, I did my best to explain exactly why the burden of proof when discussing invisible, intangible and largely (if not entirely) unknowable supernatural things is upon the person believing in them instead of the person with the blank slate or disbelieving stance. I tried pretty hard to show why it is not reasonable to start with belief and then disprove it and to also show that that isn't how we most effectively operate in our daily lives usually. I also tried to detail why Atheists aren't in need of 100% absolute certainty in their disbelief. We generally expect people to have good reason(s) for believing whatever they do, whether it is about gender equality, racial equality, stances on murder, etc. We also expect to be able to ask people why they believe something and then want them to provide supporting evidence, right? If a person was accused of a crime and said that an invisible, angel told them to do it we don't tend to start by believing them and then ask people to disprove that there wasn't an angel that made them do it. We start by being skeptical and placing the burden of proof upon the person who wants us to believe the supernatural. That's all I'm trying to convey. The burden, indeed, is theirs. I dare say that we widely agree as a society that the strongest beliefs are those which are supported by the strongest and most readily provable evidence. Have I clarified or does this part continue to lose you in you in the argument?
You've still lost me.
The way I see things, your argument is a bit of a straw man. To advance your position you've concocted a scenario which is designed to denigrate your opposition. The 'gremlin in the machine' argument is fallacious because we already have an understanding of how a watch works. The average person has a rudimentary understanding that a watch is a mechanical device which either uses some form of potential energy to produce movement. Anybody who contradicts this will obviously come across as a complete fool. Your example is akin to arguing with a crazy person. Of course, arguing with a crazy person isn't proof that you are sane.
The question of whether there is a god has no discernible answer. In your gremlin example, the one side is immediately discredited because we already know that his position is utter nonsense. While I an of the opinion that a good portion of organized religion falls under this umbrella (creationism for example), the question of whether there is or isn't a god does not. I can prove how a watch works. I can dismantle the watch and establish that there is no gremlin. I can't prove that there is or isn't a god. I can't even find an established set of parameters that define what exactly god is supposed to be.
As an Agnostic I find that atheists and theists alike have no good reason to believe anything. That's because the very question of whether there is or isn't a god is utter nonsense. It provides no useful framework for debate and there are no actual parameters which allow one to define what god is or isn't. I'll grant you; there is no good reason to believe in god (IMO of course). Then again; there is no good reason not to believe in god either. Assuming a position on a ridiculous question is ridiculous.
I'm not going to bother with your Angel argument because with a presumption of innocence actually lies with the accused (insane or not). The burden of proof is always with the prosecutor making the example rather off point.
Most theists think there is a creator deity who makes the universe and makes it work. I used the example of an invisible demon making just a watch work to show the strangeness. It is strange to think that despite having such poor evidence, that there is an invisible creator deity making everything work, just as it is strange thinking there is a demon making my watch work. Similar to the watch which can be explained by science, I too think that we’re working on figuring out how the universe works with via science too. By simply repeating the odd things you and other theists believe, but are very used to hearing (Adam and Eve, resurrections, virgin births, etc.) without a similar comparison that you aren’t used to hearing, the point is often missed entirely. The creator god being used to explain the complexity of the universe also really fails to explain anything. It posits something more complex than the universe to attempt to explain the complexity of the universe. But that’s another topic entirely.
I do actually feel that there’s not that much separating most theists with traditional beliefs from some people we’d all say are clearly delusional. Both are believing things based upon seemingly little or no evidence. Both profess a belief in things others cannot see, touch, interact with in usual ways of thinking, etc. Often both believe things which they find comforting and fear other horrific things which there is equally little evidence of and which others cannot see, touch, interact with in usual ways of thinking. I am told by believers frequently that they do, in fact, see and interact with god, the holy spirit, speak in tongues via god, are able to bargain with god (they dont' like the term bargain, but its what they do), etc. Religious leaders often claim the ability to directly communicate or see god. The pope essentially has a phone line to god, right? I do understand that many are much more like me and have never had such experiences though, yet they do still manage to maintain a faith. It sounds like that is the situation you’re in.
I don’t care whether one uses the term Atheist or Agnostic to describe me. I tend to describe myself as Humanist, but in reality I think they are not much more than crappy labels. They are useful though for coming to some sort of shared understanding.
Let me ask you a question. You admit that people on more than one occasion have killed their children saying that god told them to do it, right? That seems to clearly indicate that a theistic person thought they were in communication with a god or a representative of god, such as angel. When something like that happens, we tend to think they are crazy, right? Why is it that when a person swears a guardian angel told them to swerve and duck during an accident to avoid being impaled that people readily believe a guardian angel did protect them? The same standards of craziness should be applied when the resulting outcome is positive as it is when the result is negative. Nothing has changed except one action was positive, one was negative. In each, invisible spirit things were supposedly involved and responsible for the results. Why is a homeless person on the street “babbling” about angels they feel all around them far less convincing than a rock band like Skillet (or choose a religious band at will) performing on a stage “witnessing” with people shouting all the praise in the world to them? Why are people speaking in “tongues” so often praised and granted respect by others instead of people thinking them just as nuts as the homeless “babbler?” If we look to the Bible, we actually do see a stark example of god commanding a father to kill his child. Why shouldn’t we just believe that when a person tells us that god told them to kill their child that they are telling the truth? What I tend to notice is that when the results of believing in religion produce positive results, they are praised and admired as holy. When they produce negative results, they are the acts of crazy people, extremists, terrorists. But the arguments for actions, good or bad, are typically made with equal evidence for their validity.
I’ll grant that an Atheist is not owed any proof up to the point that you start telling us that we should wager on belief in deities because there is nastiness awaiting us if we don’t believe, or up until the point the missionaries are at the door expecting our conversion, etc. As an Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist or whatever else you may be inclined to call me, I routinely experience the scenarios I just listed. Missionaries (usually Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses in my area) show up frequently. I’m bombarded by church signs, religious icons, bumper stickers, religious fish, politicians blessing me at the conclusion of every speech, told I’m in a nation under god, etc., etc. I think you get the point.
When children are indoctrinated into various faiths while they are far too young to have adequate defences, I think there should at the very least be very strong evidence for such beliefs. There really isn’t. Yes, the US Constitution protects freedom of religion and I do respect that. However, I wish we’d let minds form to the point that we consider them adults before we really start anything remotely resembling religious indoctrination. I had made a graphic awhile back about labelling kids with religious titles and stuff. Maybe I’ll track it down and post it. Enough typing for this message though.
I need to add that I have to walk away from this thread. It's taken way more time than I can afford. I may read some more, but done posting for at least awhile.
Soulfire42, I certainly hope that you didn't type that for my sake because if you did I think you have really misinterpreted my position and my post.
This one is fast enough to respond to Nope, I think your message came in while I was tabbed out typing for far too long into Word. Sorry about the confusion.
Most theists think there is a creator deity who makes the universe and makes it work. I used the example of an invisible demon making just a watch work to show the strangeness. It is strange to think that despite having such poor evidence, that there is an invisible creator deity making everything work, just as it is strange thinking there is a demon making my watch work. Similar to the watch which can be explained by science, I too think that we’re working on figuring out how the universe works with via science too. By simply repeating the odd things you and other theists believe, but are very used to hearing (Adam and Eve, resurrections, virgin births, etc.) without a similar comparison that you aren’t used to hearing, the point is often missed entirely. The creator god being used to explain the complexity of the universe also really fails to explain anything. It posits something more complex than the universe to attempt to explain the complexity of the universe. But that’s another topic entirely.
Explain the origin of time and, if you can, explain the origin of that. Keep going back to origins and don’t stop.
I’m betting you can’t. Why? Because you can’t explain it. For example, the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? The thought that God or a higher power is the origin makes a lot more sense than saying… uh, the Big Bang caused everything… simply because something must’ve pre-existed the Big Bang.
I’ve said it before, we live in time. And until we witness life or death outside of time, we can’t fathom God’s complexity.
I do actually feel that there’s not that much separating most theists with traditional beliefs from some people we’d all say are clearly delusional. Both are believing things based upon seemingly little or no evidence. Both profess a belief in things others cannot see, touch, interact with in usual ways of thinking, etc. Often both believe things which they find comforting and fear other horrific things which there is equally little evidence of and which others cannot see, touch, interact with in usual ways of thinking. I am told by believers frequently that they do, in fact, see and interact with god, the holy spirit, speak in tongues via god, are able to bargain with god (they dont' like the term bargain, but its what they do), etc. Religious leaders often claim the ability to directly communicate or see god. The pope essentially has a phone line to god, right? I do understand that many are much more like me and have never had such experiences though, yet they do still manage to maintain a faith. It sounds like that is the situation you’re in.
To change a few words: I actually feel that there’s not much separating most atheists from some people we’d all say are clearly narcissistic. Both are so self-involved that they are refusing to accept the possibility of truth to what the majority is saying they believe. They aren’t saying to the majority, “I didn’t see, so I can’t be sure”. Nope. They are saying, “ I know with certainty that what you’re saying is wrong.”
I don’t care whether one uses the term Atheist or Agnostic to describe me. I tend to describe myself as Humanist, but in reality I think they are not much more than crappy labels. They are useful though for coming to some sort of shared understanding.
Ha ha ha.. I find this incredibly funny. So, all these words you’ve written defending the atheist position and now you are saying… um… I could be called an agnostic. Ha ha ha. Really? What a f’ing waste of time this was then. I’ve been saying all along that I don’t understand why atheists take the “atheist” position and not just “agnostic”. Agnostic makes much more sense to me. You’ve tried to defend atheism, but now you’re saying you could be an agnostic… ha ha. Seriously?
Let me ask you a question. You admit that people on more than one occasion have killed their children saying that god told them to do it, right? That seems to clearly indicate that a theistic person thought they were in communication with a god or a representative of god, such as angel. When something like that happens, we tend to think they are crazy, right? Why is it that when a person swears a guardian angel told them to swerve and duck during an accident to avoid being impaled that people readily believe a guardian angel did protect them? The same standards of craziness should be applied when the resulting outcome is positive as it is when the result is negative. Nothing has changed except one action was positive, one was negative. In each, invisible spirit things were supposedly involved and responsible for the results. Why is a homeless person on the street “babbling” about angels they feel all around them far less convincing than a rock band like Skillet (or choose a religious band at will) performing on a stage “witnessing” with people shouting all the praise in the world to them? Why are people speaking in “tongues” so often praised and granted respect by others instead of people thinking them just as nuts as the homeless “babbler?” If we look to the Bible, we actually do see a stark example of god commanding a father to kill his child. Why shouldn’t we just believe that when a person tells us that god told them to kill their child that they are telling the truth? What I tend to notice is that when the results of believing in religion produce positive results, they are praised and admired as holy. When they produce negative results, they are the acts of crazy people, extremists, terrorists. But the arguments for actions, good or bad, are typically made with equal evidence for their validity.
Wow… another comparison for believers to schizophrenic-crazy/criminal behavior. This is getting old at this point.
I’ll grant that an Atheist is not owed any proof up to the point that you start telling us that we should wager on belief in deities because there is nastiness awaiting us if we don’t believe, or up until the point the missionaries are at the door expecting our conversion, etc. As an Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist or whatever else you may be inclined to call me, I routinely experience the scenarios I just listed. Missionaries (usually Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses in my area) show up frequently. I’m bombarded by church signs, religious icons, bumper stickers, religious fish, politicians blessing me at the conclusion of every speech, told I’m in a nation under god, etc., etc. I think you get the point.
I never said there’s a nastiness awaiting you if you don’t. I don’t know where you pull these things from. I don’t know for certain what happens when we die.
I said that there’s a possibility that believers are right and you’re wrong. You’ve even admitted that. So, if that’s the case, and all it would take for an atheist to avoid the potential of the “absence of God” in their afterlife (which they are choosing right now to pursue in their present life via their atheism)… is to change to an agnostic or theist, then it makes sense to do so.
One more thing, I find it really funny that you’re now saying you may be an agnostic.
When children are indoctrinated into various faiths while they are far too young to have adequate defences, I think there should at the very least be very strong evidence for such beliefs. There really isn’t. Yes, the US Constitution protects freedom of religion and I do respect that. However, I wish we’d let minds form to the point that we consider them adults before we really start anything remotely resembling religious indoctrination. I had made a graphic awhile back about labelling kids with religious titles and stuff. Maybe I’ll track it down and post it. Enough typing for this message though.
This is very ironic. If you think there should be very strong evidence of such beliefs… then prove that God or a higher power does not exist. Remember: atheism is a belief. If you claim that others are indoctrinating children into various faiths while they are far too young to have adequate defenses, you are doing the same via atheism. It’s funny how you try to exclude your belief system (atheism) from the rest of the belief systems.
Explain the origin of time and, if you can, explain the origin of that. Keep going back to origins and don’t stop.
I’m betting you can’t. Why? Because you can’t explain it. For example, the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? The thought that God or a higher power is the origin makes a lot more sense than saying… uh, the Big Bang caused everything… simply because something must’ve pre-existed the Big Bang.
I’ve said it before, we live in time. And until we witness life or death outside of time, we can’t fathom God’s complexity.
Inserting one improvable theory in the place of another theory does not make more sense. It simply is one person asserting that their position is better. Let's be honest here; I can't even pretend that I could even begin to understand the math behind theories like the Big Bang. That doesn't invalidate them. It simply means I lack the knowledge and understanding to discuss them or reconcile any issues that these theories bring about. I'm not trying to invalidate your belief in God, but suggesting that it makes more sense than somebody else's belief is utter nonsense. Belief only makes sense to people who share your convictions. Your beliefs and the beliefs of an atheist are no more or less valid.
To change a few words: I actually feel that there’s not much separating most atheists from some people we’d all say are clearly narcissistic. Both are so self-involved that they are refusing to accept the possibility of truth to what the majority is saying they believe. They aren’t saying to the majority, “I didn’t see, so I can’t be sure”. Nope. They are saying, “ I know with certainty that what you’re saying is wrong.”
Atheists and theists can both be exceedingly arrogant and narcissistic. It's that narcissism which perpetuates this debate in the first place. Many atheists and theists and are so self-involved that they refuse to accept that there is absolutely nothing to support their beliefs. They attempt to argue reason, but beliefs are formed from an absence of supporting evidence. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs until you start to impose them on others. This is the problem I have with most organized religions, and with atheists who often operate in a very similar manner. I don't want anyone pushing their beliefs on me, yet atheists and theists are constantly trying to convince me that their lack of knowledge and understanding amounts to anything.
This is very ironic. If you think there should be very strong evidence of such beliefs… then prove that God or a higher power does not exist. Remember: atheism is a belief. If you claim that others are indoctrinating children into various faiths while they are far too young to have adequate defenses, you are doing the same via atheism. It’s funny how you try to exclude your belief system (atheism) from the rest of the belief systems.
[/quote]
This is actually a pretty fascinating concept for me. I would be curious to know how a young mind who was not exposed (as if such a thing were possible) to the 'idea of God' would approach this discussion. If a person was never exposed to this concept he or she might not believe in God, but they wouldn't be in a position to disbelieve in God either. Moreover, the cultural reverence that surrounds this topic would be lost on them. I would be interested to know if this individual would invent his own idea of god to fill in his own gaps in understanding. Would he or she develop his own unique belief system to explain the universe he lives in?
i have to admit, i too find this very conversation entertaining. i am fully aware the existence of God relies on faith, something i admit to not having. but think about this..
an absence of evidence is proof of nothing.
Cool, I have an invisible demon that spins the hands round on my watch that I can sell you then.
i dont wear watches.. and i already have an invisible demon, 2 would be too many to handle. but thanks anyway.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Cool, I have an invisible demon that spins the hands round on my watch that I can sell you then.
I did read what you wrote, and honestly, you often lose me. You start going into these odd stories (which always paint believers either as crazy or a criminal) trying to draw parallels with religious beliefs. I can't believe I'm even going to go here for a second, but... your invisible demon analogy reeks of bias right from the get-go (and this isn't even getting into the specifics). Here's why: you are drawing parallels to someone who has a spiritual belief and someone who is schizophrenic and seeing demons on watches. You know, deep down inside, that this is an attempt to sway the discussion, but it doesn't do that because it's not relate-able at all and is so odd. Moreover, even if your analogy was worth discussing, your acting as though a believer in God sees God, and the other does not. In normal terms, neither party sees a physical manifestation of God, yet one believes based on their own observations, their own research and perhaps their environment. One may decide to remain undecided. And the atheist decides to believe there is no God.
Later on here, on the burden of proof issue, you start comparing believers to criminals. Saying that the burden of proof should fall on the believer like it does the person who committed a crime because of an invisible angel. Seriously, man? Maybe you should go see someone.
I semi-agree with blueandwhite. You don't understand, and clearly won't understand that a theist does not "owe" an atheist any proof. It's not a crime scene or a doctor's office, man. They owe you nothing, other than to maybe occasionally say there's absolutely nothing gained from being an atheist. That's scientific if you're making the decision based on risk, reward and how time began.
Moreover, I'm tired of this "Atheists aren't in need of 100% certainty in their disbelief".... if you don't have full fledged "belief" that there is no God... why not just be agnostic? I've said this repetitively now. You're trying to say you're not that different from an agnostic. That's not true. An agnostic is not believing in the absence of God or spiritual higher power. They say, "I don't know". You, and atheists in general... don't. You guys say you do know with certainty there is no God.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You've still lost me.
The way I see things, your argument is a bit of a straw man. To advance your position you've concocted a scenario which is designed to denigrate your opposition. The 'gremlin in the machine' argument is fallacious because we already have an understanding of how a watch works. The average person has a rudimentary understanding that a watch is a mechanical device which either uses some form of potential energy to produce movement. Anybody who contradicts this will obviously come across as a complete fool. Your example is akin to arguing with a crazy person. Of course, arguing with a crazy person isn't proof that you are sane.
The question of whether there is a god has no discernible answer. In your gremlin example, the one side is immediately discredited because we already know that his position is utter nonsense. While I an of the opinion that a good portion of organized religion falls under this umbrella (creationism for example), the question of whether there is or isn't a god does not. I can prove how a watch works. I can dismantle the watch and establish that there is no gremlin. I can't prove that there is or isn't a god. I can't even find an established set of parameters that define what exactly god is supposed to be.
As an Agnostic I find that atheists and theists alike have no good reason to believe anything. That's because the very question of whether there is or isn't a god is utter nonsense. It provides no useful framework for debate and there are no actual parameters which allow one to define what god is or isn't. I'll grant you; there is no good reason to believe in god (IMO of course). Then again; there is no good reason not to believe in god either. Assuming a position on a ridiculous question is ridiculous.
I'm not going to bother with your Angel argument because with a presumption of innocence actually lies with the accused (insane or not). The burden of proof is always with the prosecutor making the example rather off point.
I do actually feel that there’s not that much separating most theists with traditional beliefs from some people we’d all say are clearly delusional. Both are believing things based upon seemingly little or no evidence. Both profess a belief in things others cannot see, touch, interact with in usual ways of thinking, etc. Often both believe things which they find comforting and fear other horrific things which there is equally little evidence of and which others cannot see, touch, interact with in usual ways of thinking. I am told by believers frequently that they do, in fact, see and interact with god, the holy spirit, speak in tongues via god, are able to bargain with god (they dont' like the term bargain, but its what they do), etc. Religious leaders often claim the ability to directly communicate or see god. The pope essentially has a phone line to god, right?
I don’t care whether one uses the term Atheist or Agnostic to describe me. I tend to describe myself as Humanist, but in reality I think they are not much more than crappy labels. They are useful though for coming to some sort of shared understanding.
Let me ask you a question. You admit that people on more than one occasion have killed their children saying that god told them to do it, right? That seems to clearly indicate that a theistic person thought they were in communication with a god or a representative of god, such as angel. When something like that happens, we tend to think they are crazy, right? Why is it that when a person swears a guardian angel told them to swerve and duck during an accident to avoid being impaled that people readily believe a guardian angel did protect them? The same standards of craziness should be applied when the resulting outcome is positive as it is when the result is negative. Nothing has changed except one action was positive, one was negative. In each, invisible spirit things were supposedly involved and responsible for the results. Why is a homeless person on the street “babbling” about angels they feel all around them far less convincing than a rock band like Skillet (or choose a religious band at will) performing on a stage “witnessing” with people shouting all the praise in the world to them? Why are people speaking in “tongues” so often praised and granted respect by others instead of people thinking them just as nuts as the homeless “babbler?” If we look to the Bible, we actually do see a stark example of god commanding a father to kill his child. Why shouldn’t we just believe that when a person tells us that god told them to kill their child that they are telling the truth? What I tend to notice is that when the results of believing in religion produce positive results, they are praised and admired as holy. When they produce negative results, they are the acts of crazy people, extremists, terrorists. But the arguments for actions, good or bad, are typically made with equal evidence for their validity.
I’ll grant that an Atheist is not owed any proof up to the point that you start telling us that we should wager on belief in deities because there is nastiness awaiting us if we don’t believe, or up until the point the missionaries are at the door expecting our conversion, etc. As an Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist or whatever else you may be inclined to call me, I routinely experience the scenarios I just listed. Missionaries (usually Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses in my area) show up frequently. I’m bombarded by church signs, religious icons, bumper stickers, religious fish, politicians blessing me at the conclusion of every speech, told I’m in a nation under god, etc., etc. I think you get the point.
When children are indoctrinated into various faiths while they are far too young to have adequate defences, I think there should at the very least be very strong evidence for such beliefs. There really isn’t. Yes, the US Constitution protects freedom of religion and I do respect that. However, I wish we’d let minds form to the point that we consider them adults before we really start anything remotely resembling religious indoctrination. I had made a graphic awhile back about labelling kids with religious titles and stuff. Maybe I’ll track it down and post it. Enough typing for this message though.
This one is fast enough to respond to
Explain the origin of time and, if you can, explain the origin of that. Keep going back to origins and don’t stop.
I’m betting you can’t. Why? Because you can’t explain it. For example, the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? The thought that God or a higher power is the origin makes a lot more sense than saying… uh, the Big Bang caused everything… simply because something must’ve pre-existed the Big Bang.
I’ve said it before, we live in time. And until we witness life or death outside of time, we can’t fathom God’s complexity.
To change a few words: I actually feel that there’s not much separating most atheists from some people we’d all say are clearly narcissistic. Both are so self-involved that they are refusing to accept the possibility of truth to what the majority is saying they believe. They aren’t saying to the majority, “I didn’t see, so I can’t be sure”. Nope. They are saying, “ I know with certainty that what you’re saying is wrong.”
Ha ha ha.. I find this incredibly funny. So, all these words you’ve written defending the atheist position and now you are saying… um… I could be called an agnostic. Ha ha ha. Really? What a f’ing waste of time this was then. I’ve been saying all along that I don’t understand why atheists take the “atheist” position and not just “agnostic”. Agnostic makes much more sense to me. You’ve tried to defend atheism, but now you’re saying you could be an agnostic… ha ha. Seriously?
Wow… another comparison for believers to schizophrenic-crazy/criminal behavior. This is getting old at this point.
I never said there’s a nastiness awaiting you if you don’t. I don’t know where you pull these things from. I don’t know for certain what happens when we die.
I said that there’s a possibility that believers are right and you’re wrong. You’ve even admitted that. So, if that’s the case, and all it would take for an atheist to avoid the potential of the “absence of God” in their afterlife (which they are choosing right now to pursue in their present life via their atheism)… is to change to an agnostic or theist, then it makes sense to do so.
One more thing, I find it really funny that you’re now saying you may be an agnostic.
This is very ironic. If you think there should be very strong evidence of such beliefs… then prove that God or a higher power does not exist. Remember: atheism is a belief. If you claim that others are indoctrinating children into various faiths while they are far too young to have adequate defenses, you are doing the same via atheism. It’s funny how you try to exclude your belief system (atheism) from the rest of the belief systems.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Inserting one improvable theory in the place of another theory does not make more sense. It simply is one person asserting that their position is better. Let's be honest here; I can't even pretend that I could even begin to understand the math behind theories like the Big Bang. That doesn't invalidate them. It simply means I lack the knowledge and understanding to discuss them or reconcile any issues that these theories bring about. I'm not trying to invalidate your belief in God, but suggesting that it makes more sense than somebody else's belief is utter nonsense. Belief only makes sense to people who share your convictions. Your beliefs and the beliefs of an atheist are no more or less valid.
Atheists and theists can both be exceedingly arrogant and narcissistic. It's that narcissism which perpetuates this debate in the first place. Many atheists and theists and are so self-involved that they refuse to accept that there is absolutely nothing to support their beliefs. They attempt to argue reason, but beliefs are formed from an absence of supporting evidence. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs until you start to impose them on others. This is the problem I have with most organized religions, and with atheists who often operate in a very similar manner. I don't want anyone pushing their beliefs on me, yet atheists and theists are constantly trying to convince me that their lack of knowledge and understanding amounts to anything.
[/quote]
This is actually a pretty fascinating concept for me. I would be curious to know how a young mind who was not exposed (as if such a thing were possible) to the 'idea of God' would approach this discussion. If a person was never exposed to this concept he or she might not believe in God, but they wouldn't be in a position to disbelieve in God either. Moreover, the cultural reverence that surrounds this topic would be lost on them. I would be interested to know if this individual would invent his own idea of god to fill in his own gaps in understanding. Would he or she develop his own unique belief system to explain the universe he lives in?
i dont wear watches.. and i already have an invisible demon, 2 would be too many to handle. but thanks anyway.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say