2006-11-15 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: There is no other kind of argument that is used. All beliefs are full of circular reasoning. And I'm not asking you to bow down before my reasoning. I'm asking you to bow to the one who created reason.

2006-11-15 [ceridwen]: God can't contradict himself, eh? So if god is perfect and can do all and anything, can he create a boulder so massive he can't lift it?

And who defines human nature? Who's to say it's our nature to go against god, aside from xains? And how does this orginal sin crap work? Even though we've done nothing wrong in our first minutes of life, we're sinful and should go to hell. So... If a fetus is child, it goes to hell, even though it's never sinned, but Adam and Eve did. So infants also deserve hell because of thier 'sinful bature'? How is that benevolent?

2006-11-15 [Fizban]: Being held accountable is fine...

But I mean...its like a put a baby duck in a pond full of piranha. I know it's going to die.

I know many xians that act like we hurt god with what we do, because he is the father of all, and thus cares about his children.

But he created us, knowing we would fail.

He created adam and eve, knowing they would consume the fruit, just as he created the snake, knowing it would tempt them. He created that which would corrupt man kind, and created that which would draw man kind away from himself.

It sounds all so much like an elaborate set up...

2006-11-15 [Dil*]: Just quit while you're ahead, you're digging a deeper pit for yourself.

2006-11-15 [Fizban]: Alright dil, now your not making an argument, your just bluntly adding in things to insult her.

2006-11-15 [Dil*]: I have made my warnings about how I am on this page.

2006-11-15 [Half-Mad Poet]: no worries, when reading or listing to conversation, rember it can be disregrded as untrue if it carries illogical fallicies. Ad Hominem, Red Herring, etc.

2006-11-15 [Dil*]: my last message wasn't just an ad hominem.

2006-11-15 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: Once again. I base my beliefs on the Bible. Plain fact. To contradict that is to contradict God. And no. God cannot make a rock so big that He can't lift it. God cannot do all things. God cannot sin. God cannot do evil. We cannot know the origin of evil because the Bible does not reveal it to us. Plain fact. God can however, do all his holy will...and everything contrary to his character is evil. It sounds selfish..But this is GOD! Not some petty human who decided that all the world must worship him! Stop and think about that... If I was right... wouldn't He be deserving of all glory and honor? If he created all things?

2006-11-15 [Sedition]: that has more logic holes then swiss cheese."It sounds selfish..but this is GOD!Not some petty human who decided that all the world must worship him!"....whats the differance again?oh yeah,the bible says they are different just becuase,no real reasoning is behind your statement.your basiclly saying its alright for god to do what the petty guy was doing,becuase,well,hes a petty guy,and god is god,and everything god does is cool.

Im not even going to repeat my arguement of how evil couldnt exist without god in the first place (if anything becuase good could not be measured without evil in the first place,thus morals wouldnt exist,and the rules of the bible along with it.if you want to get really nit picky,you could say god created evil with adam and eve when he made the apple and told them they couldnt have it.that was the first instance of a rule with a good or bad outcome,thus god created a good and evil choice for them to make,albeit "good and evil" were merely subjective to whatever god wanted it to be,meaning there is no true universal good or evil standards,merely what pleases or pisses off god.)

2006-11-15 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: alright... look. I know I can't explain this to you properly... so I'm not going to try. Only God can convince you... , to take a line from Augustine "I believe in order to understand"

2006-11-15 [Sedition]: rriigghttt...how many times have i heard that one?the statement is a contradiction from the bible that states that god wishes for his creations to know him,but whatever,ill just get the same crappy "god works in mysteriuos ways" cop-out.

2006-11-16 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: if you want to take it that way.. I really can't explain it any differently. God is God...and that really is all there is to it. I also struggle with many of the same issues that we're debating here... But ultimately I am always brought back to God. There is no other way. The God who allowed us to sin is also the God who loved us while we were yet sinners. It is not hard to love someone who loves you...or someone who acts nicely. But God loved me when I had royally screwed up my life....and He always will. It is not I who do anything right...but Christ who lives in me. The lord who allowed sin to come into the world is also the Lord who said "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

2006-11-16 [Sedition]: id hardly call actions like flooding the earth and wiping out primitave civilizations acts of love and forgiveness.

2006-11-16 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: God is not only a God of judgment... he is also just.

Here is an excerpt from the Heidelberg Catechism..which is basically a summery of the Christian faith. It answers your questions and has the scriptural proofs right underneath. Now I know you don't agree with using the Bible as proof.. but, since you have to assume the God is real in order to say that He's evil, at least try reading this with an open mind.

"
Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?
Answer: Not at all; (a) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (b) and his own wilful disobedience, (c) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

(a) Eph.4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Eccl.7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. (b) John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 2 Cor.11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Gen.3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (c) Gen.3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Gen.3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 1 Tim.2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 1 Tim.2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Question 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

Answer: By no means; but is terribly displeased (a) with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, (b) as he has declared, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (c)

(a) Gen.2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (b) Ps.5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Ps.50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Nah.1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Exod.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Exod.34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Rom.1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Eph.5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Heb.9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (c) Deut.27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?

Answer: God is indeed merciful, (a) but also just; (b) therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

(a) Exod.34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exod.34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Exod.20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (b) Ps.7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins. Exod.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Exod.23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. Exod.34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Ps.5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Ps.5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. Nah.1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Nah.1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet."

2006-11-16 [Sedition]: god does this becuase the bible says he does.and the bible is true becuase god said so in the bible.

2006-11-16 [Dil*]: Merciful? Excuse me while I laugh myself into a coma.

Hello hell, eternal torment is very equatable to eternal wrathfulness and evil and guess what! non-forgiveness.

2006-11-16 [Sedition]: bingo,hell is proof itself that god is not all forgiving.

2006-11-16 [Fizban]: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers"

Um...jealousy is not a positive adjective.

I don't consider jealousy a facet of perfection.

I wouldn't think that someone/thing perfect would be jealous, its really not positive.

2006-11-16 [ceridwen]: Yes, the jealous god catch. I've always wondered how that worked, even when I still proclaimed to be a xian. If god is perfect, how is he jealous?

1 Chor. 13:4 "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up."

So... it says right there that love doesn't envy. So god doesn't have real love, because he's jealous. Also, I've been taught god is love. But if love doesn't envy, that's not true. Futhermore, in that verse, it says love is not puffed up. God created us to glorify himself, right? Well, I think that's parading one's power. Ergo, god is not benevolent. It's right there in the Bible.

2006-11-16 [Sedition]: right-o,the best weapon against the bible is the bible itself.it takes alot of faith(gullibillity,and the tenaciuos aptitude to not ask questions)to read through the entire bible and not turn atleast agnostic.

2006-11-16 [Fizban]: not it doesnt, we see here scarlet who has, and who obviously isn't agnostic. And I respect he for that. It completly depends on how you look at it, she is correct in saying we are all going to be pessimistic about it, because we obviously are.

The first thing I did was found the least flattering thing in those passages. Ignoring the ones she was really trying to show us. That doesnt mean those can't be taken into account, but shows our thinking.

2006-11-16 [Sedition]: it worked for me pretty well fizban.

2006-11-17 [ceridwen]: Heh. I completely respect Scarlet. In fact, if I seem vindictive, I don't mean to. But I am pessimistic because I'm angry at god, and want to tear down the ideas of Christianity since I think it's ludacris. >.<

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: That's the interesting contrast between Christianity and Atheists. If you think about it... you're really not better off if you are an atheist. You are disillusioned with the world, humanity, and yourself. You have to create your own purpose. Christians know what their purpose is, namely, to glorify God.

And to answer the jealous question. God is jealous for His people's well being. It's like a father being mad at his daughter for dating asshole who are going to hurt her. He knows that His way is best and so He wants us to follow that way.

Oh and Dil... read the rest of the question.

Answer: God is indeed merciful, (a) but also just; (b) therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

(a) Exod.34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exod.34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Exod.20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (b) Ps.7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins. Exod.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Exod.23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. Exod.34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Ps.5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Ps.5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. Nah.1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Nah.1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet."

God cannot just "forget" sin. To do so would deny His very being. It is impossible. So in that respect. No, God cannot do all things. He cannot contradict himself.

2006-11-17 [Dil*]: Don't tell me I'm worse off than you. You have simply no idea. And if our entire existence was some sort of twisted ego trip for a 'man in the sky', then there is absolutely no point in living.

No that is NOT merciful. Have you read my last post? Finite sins DOES NOT equate to infinite punishment.

If he is a loving god, there simply would not be a hell. If you were to view god as a fatherly figure, then it's absolutely vile to imagine a 'father' putting his *own* children in a place of eternal torment for spiting him. That's absolutely ridiculous.

2006-11-17 [Half-Mad Poet]: I wonder though, do we "have to" or do we choose to. I see it as more of the seconded, because if we "had" to create our own purpose, it would seem logical to find or create one that already explained things for us.

I know my purpose is to seek truth and discover myself. If it comes at the price of disillusionment, then i praise it even more, for in order to become disillusioned with the world, humanity, and ourselves there must be an illusion to dispel. And whoever willfully chooses to live within illusion is not only denying reality but living an unexamined life.

2006-11-17 [Dil*]: "An unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

and I do have lots of lows, but I also have lots of highs and they are real highs. Existentialism has a flipside. It's the negative and the positive, but it's much more real to me than any sort of self-delusion.

2006-11-17 [Half-Mad Poet]: as long as your not a nihlist ;)

lol, nah, nothing against nihlists either.

2006-11-17 [Dil*]: nihilists are interesting, but depressing.

I was a nihilist, but their axioms are ridiculous. And nihilism is a self-contradictory philosophy.

Keyword: "Was", it was a necessary journey, quite horrific though..watching my morality crumble before my eyes. I'm a huge moralist, you see. morality = extremely important to me.

2006-11-17 [Half-Mad Poet]: *nods*

exactly, which proves that morlity is not just a theist quality. just out of curiosity, before i go, are you a relativist ethist, or a command ethist?

2006-11-17 [Dil*]: moral subjectivist, following the only values that matter: My own.

what is command ethicist?

moral relativist has cultural relativism with it, and cultural relativism got destroyed with 'reformer's dilemma'.

2006-11-17 [Fizban]: sorry, I missed my chance at that.

Yeah, no, thats a completely convoluted statement there Scarlet.

I am more offended by that then anything else you have ever said...XD

Christianity is a belief like any other.

my main philosophy,..."Don't conform to your beliefs, conform your belief's to you."


I would NOT be better off as a Christian. I would be self loathing, my self image would be destroyed, and I would want to die a horrible torturous death, of pain and anguish. Wanting to commit suicide, and the only reason I wouldn't is because of the very religion that would make me suicidal.

So honestly, I am fine with being agnostic. Then being the jaded child of god.

2006-11-17 [ceridwen]: Scarlet, you didn't really answer any of my questions. It says right in the Bible that love is not jealous. So, does go not love?

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: Ceridwen. Jealous is not envy. Jealousy..when referring to God is refering to this "vigilance in maintaining or guarding something." He is guarding His honor as well as His people's well being. Envious is "a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc." Not the same thing. Those people who do not follow God's law are not His children. And His justice MUST be satisfied! Every single person has the chance to be saved, but only those who are God's children will be. The rest don't even want to be! Is God going to save someone who will continue to hate Him? I don't think so.

My other point sort of got away from me... I tend to jump ahead. so I'll continue. My point was not that being a Christian was better than being an atheist (though I believe it is) It was that by your(in general) estimation it is worse for a person to be a Christian than not.

Many of you are so concerned with breaking my faith... why? I am concerned with telling you of my faith because I do not want you to be condemned. Because I care.
But if there is nothing...if I'm wrong. Than how does it affect you? really... If I follow Christianity than I will have strong morals, a sense of purpose, and a love for my enemy as well as my neighbor. What is so objectionable about that?

In my estimation it's the same as why homosexuals want marriage to be legalized. Not merely because they want the same "rights". But they don't want anyone to have the right to say that what they are doing is wrong. People hate Christian's because we tell them that what they are doing is wrong and that if they don't repent than yes, they will be condemned. ...and people hate to hear that. But please... correct me if I'm wrong. But no using past examples of idiots who claimed the name Christian. Despite our faith we are still fallen creatures. I'm asking you how just Me being a Christian will affect you.

2006-11-17 [Fizban]: Those people who do not follow God's law are not His children. And His justice MUST be satisfied! Every single person has the chance to be saved, but only those who are God's children will be. The rest don't even want to be! Is God going to save someone who will continue to hate Him? I don't think so.

Really, I have never heard that before. The saying was, we are all gods children and he loves us all irrelevently, ect...

So if we are not god's children, who is our father,...

and then why would we have to abide by the rules of he who is not our father?

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: He may not be "your" father. BUt he is still your creator. Those who do not love Him are children of the devil.

In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother." (1John3:10)

2006-11-17 [Sedition]: wow,so ill go kill my neighbors children and through them in a bonfire becuase they dont follow the same rules as my children.real civilised.

2006-11-17 [ceridwen]: "Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother." Isn't that everyone? If Romans 3:23 is correct ("...or all have sinned and..."), then none of us are of God. So, you aren't of God either.

Oh, and Scarlet, I'm not trying to break your faith. I'd just like to know how you can continue to believe this. And what's more, I want answers, and you seem to be a better source than a preacher. :P

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: Wow Shadow. So where on earth do you get that idea? No where in the Bible does it tell people to kill... so just get over yourself. You and I are not God. And yes. That is all there is to it.

And ceridwen. The difference is that through the work of Christ I am made righteous before God. He looks upon me as though I never had, nor committed any sin.

"Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?

Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (a) so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (b) and am still inclined to all evil; (c) notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (d) but only of mere grace, (e) grants and imputes to me, (f) the perfect satisfaction, (g) righteousness and holiness of Christ; (h) even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (i) inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (j)

(a) Rom.3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom.3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: Rom.3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom.3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom.3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom.5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom.5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Gal.2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph.2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Philip.3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (b) Rom.3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (c) Rom.7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (d) Tit.3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Deut.9:6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people. Ezek.36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. (e) Rom.3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (f) Rom.4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Rom.4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 2 Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (g) 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (h) 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (i) 2 Cor.5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (j) Rom.3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

2006-11-17 [Dil*]: ["Many of you are so concerned with breaking my faith... why? I am concerned with telling you of my faith because I do not want you to be condemned. Because I care.
But if there is nothing...if I'm wrong. Than how does it affect you? really... If I follow Christianity than I will have strong morals, a sense of purpose, and a love for my enemy as well as my neighbor. What is so objectionable about that?"]

You come in here, and accuse us of 'trying to break your faith'? It's nice that you care, but you haven't made any real good points. You already know how I view 'sense of purpose' in my creation just for the mere purpose of stroking a super-being ego. Are you implying we do not have morals? I find lots of things objectable about christianity. #1, would be the concept of hell, that is immoral. horribly so. 2nd, would be involvement in politics.

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: Alright Dil. (no I was not saying you had no morals...just making the point that my faith gave me guidance in mine..) You win. I gracefully will bow out. If anyone wants to continue these discussions than feel free to message me personally. I guess my comments on a all out Atheist Wiki could be constituted on trying to break your faith...which I am to be honest. I wish for you to see God as I see Him... Because He is so amazing. But I really don't think I can say much more than I have already. ...

2006-11-17 [Dil*]: Alright. No hard feelings.

2006-11-17 [ceridwen]: "In my estimation it's the same as why homosexuals want marriage to be legalized. Not merely because they want the same "rights". But they don't want anyone to have the right to say that what they are doing is wrong."

Now that just pisses me off. I am quite adamant about having homosexual marriages. It's not going to change much, except that the rest of the population will have the same rights. People will still condemn homosexual and say it's wrong. It won't freedom of speech, missy. The only reason we want homosexual marriage leglaized is because we're people too. We love just the same as eveyone else. How would you feel if someone told you because you are heterosexual you can't marry? I think you'd be a bit peeved as well. Religion shouldn't be involved with goverment. So... there's really no reason for us not to have legalized homosexual marriages.

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: perhaps. But marriage has always been a religious institution. ... and btw. It's impossible for Christians not to act upon their worldview in politics. Just give me an example of a neutral position... that's right. It does not exist. Not really. Either you are for something verbally. Against something verbally. Or you don't care...and that not caring means not doing anything...which means you merely side with the side that wins. But...ya.

2006-11-17 [ceridwen]: Heh. It started out as a religious institution. If its religious, then shouldn't atheists be banned from marriage as well? It's just one of those things. If you're going to exclude us because of religion, exclude other people who aren't religious as well. There should be some kind of fairness to it.

2006-11-17 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: ya...well the definition is what is being changed... but ya...

2006-11-18 [Dil*]: Oh dear. You've just fanned the flames.

NO, being against gay marriage is not okay. It's NOT OKAY. Marriage is what you make it. Marriage has legal benefits that civil unions do not. Why ban homosexual marriage? Such a thing does not infringe upon the happiness of others, unless you desire to much to force your religion into people's lives reducing the quality of it making it more unliveable than it already is for some. You know what, there's absolutely no good reason why one would be against gay marriage, you're opposing something that has absolutely nothing to do with your own life. Mind your own business. 

Again, marriage is what you make it. Why can Britney Spears have a 55 hour marriage and then divorce? Does that mean more that a homosexual relationship? If divorce rates are extremely high, it's your own fricken faults.

Christianity does not have a bleeding monopoly on marriage either. FYI, greeks, had marriage before the xians, and they had homosexual marriages, which puts an interesting spin on things.

anywho hf gay marriage, there is no reason to be against gay marriage after that, unless you really are a religious bigot. I like how they cherry pick their scripture to justify their bigotry, oh how the blinding light of hypocrisy shines through...

2006-11-18 [Sedition]: ouch,score one for Dil -claps-

2006-11-18 [Dil*]: yeah, I'm pretty bad with religion, but religion+politics = me...yeah. You can see the results.

2006-11-18 [Fizban]: Scarlet.

Can you tell me what the definition for Marriage is?

To then tell me, what it is about it, that is being changed?

Because, the last time I checked, marriage was never universally defined as "man + woman" and the christians took it from others who as dil said had it before them.

And it is possible for Christians to not act on there world view. Don't say ~we have no choice but to try and condemn those around us~ which is basically what that means...because that is so not true.

I know Christians that don't advocate for there religious beliefs to be imbued into the friggen laws. Because they don't believe they have the right to ~force~ others to do anything.

What right do you have to decide whats right for others. In a real world view of things, in politics, your beliefs are no different then a devil worshipers. If we are to include one set of beliefs within this constitution, what right have we to exclude any others?

Then you might say, because there are more Christians in this country.

But thats like saying, that the whites get to choose over the blacks, because there are more whites in this country.

2006-11-18 [Half-Mad Poet]: oi, gone for a few days and the page goes to hell (a joke!) any who, its late, so i wont bother any of you for to long.

firstly, as for a defenition of command ethics, i'll message you personally about that dil, i dont know if i want to type it all in right now.

as for marriage, as has been noted, it has been around for ages before christianity, though i think some termed it handfasting? (again, exuces the inacuracy, late... lol, i know, a poor excuse). its is not a christain invention, so if we are to apply the rules of ancients onto our own, we may as well start with the pagans, as the preceded christianity.

lastly, there is only one argument against gay marraige that even holds ground as arguable, and that is the economic one. and that is by no means a good argument, just the only one that has any foot hold in logic.

night all,

p.n.
hmp 

2006-11-22 [Dil*]: shit shit shit!

it's 'infinite regression' not 'infinite progression', why didn't anyone point that out!! XD Do any of you understand what I write or at least read it...?

please point out typos.

2006-11-22 [lacklustre]: it's an infinite statment and it can go either way. Gotta love them quantum physics and wacky theories.

2006-11-22 [ceridwen]: I must have skimmed over it. And I've read the page a few times, but not much lately. No updates, so... the point in rereading is? xP

2006-11-30 [Half-Mad Poet]: any who, with lack of an opposing force since Scarlet left (i think so any who, as she said she was, and arguments have all but stopped)i think i will step in for defense of religion, or at least a deity. i plan to argue three of the major arguments for a deity, then cover the implications of the death of god. no worries though, i will not be arguing from a specific denominational standpoint, nor will i be using any religious text as a specific. it would seem doing so is generally self defeating, as most religious texts seem to create more questions then answers. i hope to start tomorrow, if not, relatively soon.

p.n.
hmp

2006-11-30 [Sedition]: look forward to it,carefull though,were seasoned pros

2006-11-30 [ceridwen]: Ah. I'm glad someone's picking up the torch. xP I was trying before Scarlet came along, but I am horrible at defending things like that.

2006-11-30 [Dil*]: ...you were...trying?

2006-11-30 [Fizban]: ...<_<...bitch. 

Sounds good to me, should be fun.

2006-11-30 [ceridwen]: Half-heartedly... >.>

Now I've gotten to the point where there is no need to defend my theism. Atheism makes sense, but theism makes me feel better. xP

2006-11-30 [Fizban]: You got it. Those are the struggles of the intelligent beleiver.

Heart vs Head.

Right now my Head is by far winning. What of yours?

2006-11-30 [ceridwen]: Heh... well... I'm not sure. See, I'm not a deist. I like to think some god has a hand in some of human life, just not all of it. But... God isn't a big part of my life. God is pretty irrelevant, unless I'm blasting out profanities. At the same time, I can't totally abandon the idea of God. So... I guess my Head and Heart are at a standstill.

2006-12-01 [Half-Mad Poet]: i apologize for the lateness. here it goes, the first major argument for god. after word, i expect a lively debate ;)

The Cosmological argument. (a summary from Philosophy: An Introduction from the Art of Wondering )

"we live in a world of matter in motion" This is rather obvious, and can be empirically proven to be true. an object in rest is not in motion, but is potentially in motion. potential energy, as it were. all rested objects have this potential energy but can not be caused to move unless caused to do something that is already moving.

obvious, an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

an object at rest cannot be moved by another object at rest. every motion was created by another action. if this is true, which we know empirically it is, then that means that there is an infinite chain of objects shifting from potential to kinetic, and doing so to the next item. there must have been an item before the reaction, and before and before. so on. a basic principle.

following this trail backwards in an "infinite regression”: we are lead to a logical contradiction. a dead end. something must, logically, have started this chain without its own activator. It must have started off "as pure actuality and not potential". and this, whatever it is, has been coined the "unmoved mover" by Thomas Aquinas, though the idea was originally developed by Aristotle. This "unmoved mover" is god.

While I doubt I summed it up as well as I should have, here it lay.


p.n.

2006-12-01 [Dil*]: That makes no sense at all, I already addressed this infinite regression arguement. And why would first cause have to be god? That's a huge, non-logical assumption. You may form a million hypothesis, but in the end, ockham's razor cuts them down.

And if you say..there must have been 'first cause', what's wrong with saying first cause was an energy fluxuation? If everything had a cause, would god not also have to have a cause? If you assume everything must have had a cause, then god must have had a cause...not to mention my logical proofs defending the position of 'the universe just is.' as opposed to 'god just is'.

2006-12-01 [Dil*]: 1. “Matter cannot be created or destroyed”
2. :.Matter has always existed.
3. The universe consists of matter.
4. :. the universe has always existed.

Where did the energy from the big bang come from? That energy cannot have come from nowhere.

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy can only be converted.
3. The universe started out as a super dense mass with potential energy.
4. The big bang wasn’t caused by external energy; it was simply releasing the potential energy it had in the first place in the form of kinetic energy.
5. :. No ‘external’ explanation is needed.
6. :. No creator hypothesis is needed.
7. Ockam’s Razor states that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

2006-12-02 [Fizban]: However, To assume that god is outside of this universe as a separate entity acting within it, would be perhaps to assume that he/she/it is not subject to the same principals of logic that governs our universe. A god could be an extra planar being, if we are to go so far as to say that heaven is another universe, that is capable of interacting with this one, is to go along with that estranged idea.

However, the idea that things need kinetic energy to get kinetic energy (such as a baseball has potential energy until you instill it with your kinetic energy imparted upon it when you throw it.) Isn't perhaps entirely true.

Those principals aren't set in stone, and I mean due to the sub-atomic particles.

Scientists aren't sure of there orgin or the source of there action.

If you were to take O2 and just spray it out in space, since there is no gasses in space already there it would just float around, nothing to bounce into the gas particles to get them to bounce and move, they would just plain float. Held together by there own gravity, and tugged by the gravitational force of anything around it perhaps.

But the subatomic particles don't act in the same manner. Gravitons are emitted by all things with mass. (ie thermal radiation has no mass because it is purely energy inhabiting matter, but this computer does obviously because it is made of materials with mass. However, under that principal even electricity creates gravity, because electricity is made up of electrons, and electrons have mass, albeit so EXTREMELY little it doesn't amount enough to even consider it in the atomic mass of an element or compound. Irrelevently, you see my point, alot of the universe has gravity)

But here you see a confusion. What gives gratity it's energy? What makes gravitons move? Why does everything with mass emit or have sway over these gravitons, while being affected by them all the same?

There is no bouncing there is nothing known to be imparting this force. It just ~is~. There is no known way to extract its energy, to halt it, nothing.

Same concept with time. The idea that everything happens due to particles, thus the concept of ~chronotons~ comes in. A more sketchy idea then gravitons now, but it's the same idea. What is making time go forward? For anything to take place there must be energy? If time really is to be counted as the fourth defining point of, length, width, depth, and time. Would it then need chronotons? It's being described as both a description of our universe as well as an action within it.


Either way, you get my point. The idea that everything needs the kinetic energy of something else to do anything,...Well I don't know if that's entirely true.

Because whats to say that gravity didn't just start everything?

2006-12-02 [Dil*]: The god hypothesis is pretty worthless.

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean 'god did it', that, my friend, is arguement from ignorance.

And you haven't really addressed my logical proofs...My logical proofs deal with proving how the universe could be 'just is'. And strawman, I'm not saying everything 'has always been and is the same', I'm saying, the universe is a closed system by definition and requires no god explanation for the origin of it. Don't need a god explanation.

the invisible pink unicorn just is and always has been, everything must have had a first cause and that first cause is a superintelligent/superpowerful invisible pink unicorn....

...prove me wrong!!!

2006-12-02 [Fizban]: Non detectable? 

Now how can you prove god is non-detectable?

2006-12-02 [Sedition]: on a side note,gravity is detectable.check out avionics

2006-12-02 [Dil*]: gravity is a force, and you're still argueing from ignorance.

I don't see how the incompleteness of science could justify the existence of a 'creator' figure.

You cannot prove that god is non-detectable, I was saying, if they claim god is non-detectable, then it must not interact with our universe in any way.

FYI creationist ideas are absolute bullshit and do lead to infinite regression and I have already addressed it on this page. 

2006-12-02 [Sedition]: ditto,people seem mistaken in that they believe that you must be able to see or feel something in order for it to "exist" in the realm of science.if it can be measured,altered,reproduced,contained,or observed,then it by all means exist.taking a quick break from atheism for a second,gravity is measured by the force exerted from an object onto a smaller object,this is observed by the forces of space were things can be veiwed on a large scale were as earthly scaled objects make it much harder to detect besides things going up and down.Im no expert,so i cant tell you the complete theoretics behind why gravity actually happens,but as i remember it had something to do with the magnetic properties exerted by all objects in the universe,though this magnetic energy is weak,greater mass equals a larger feild,thus the magnetic feild around our planet and other celestial bodies.when an object is pulled into the gravitational pull two things can happen,one,the greater mass can collide with the smaller object if the larger mass is excedingly larger.or in the case of our solar system,inertia forces the object into a rotation cycle,similar to swinging a weight on a string;when the weaker mass is pulled into the magnetic feild,but is big enough that it doesnt collide with the larger mass,then the momentum of its attempt to pass by the larger mass swerves it into a rotation once gravity pulls at it.its alot like someone running past you at top speed,but then you grab their arm and as long as they kept up that speed,they would swerve in a circle around you repeadietly,the force of the puller keeping the pulled in person in the constant swerve,and the momentum of the swerving individual pulling away at the source person so greatly that the momentum continued the same without the individual getting any closer to the person pulling them.

but this is a wiki on athiesm,so i wont take anymore of your time with this ;p

2006-12-03 [ceridwen]: Eh... but... if the universe has always existed, couldn't a god be part of that universe? Couldn't a god have always been? It follows the same logic.

"But...the creator obviously must be intelligent and complex. Who created the creator?"
If there doesn't have to be a creator for there to be a universe, why must there be a creator for a creator?

I'm sure I'm sounding idiotic, as always, but... I just don't see the difference.

2006-12-03 [Dil*]: Ockam's Razor, I have addressed this very point up above.

The reasoning behind intelligent design is that since the universe is a very complex place, it must have been designed and by a creator, but it fails because the 'creator' must also be very complex and intelligent...this falls into infinite regression because it uses that kind of logic.

While, 'matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed' is a physical fact: analogy, I have a container of water, water cannot be put into the container, and watter cannot be taken out of the container. so water has always been in the container.

2006-12-03 [Dil*]: I'm taking a break from this page because of finals

-shadow you can have my back while I'm away :)

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: will do dil

2006-12-03 [Fizban]: The spinning, it's called Centrifugal force [Sedition] and we know gravity is detectable, for as humans we can feel it let alone the numerous other things we have come up with.

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: so far,as far as i know,gravity has less to do with the particular amount of energy a mass has,and more to do with the size of the mass itself.the thing about gravity is although it cant be seen,its effects can clearly be observed,and its easy to tell when there is gravity and when there isent.unlike god,which is an ideology and is not observable.

2006-12-03 [lacklustre]: gravity is proportional to how fat your ass is er or really the amound of pull on your ass from the magnetic field of eath and such.

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: such intellegent input

2006-12-03 [Fizban]: well, not really when there isn't inst, but morely when there is less. There is no gravity, when there is no matter, or energy in a particular place. Although energy is so sketchy, because energy is matter. So sometimes energy has mass, such as with light, because light is both a wave and a particle (photon) this it is both energy and matter. Same as electricity, both a wave, and a particle (electron) and thus has mass, and thus has gravity.

And it's not specifically as whatever is biggest has gravity, every single particle has gravity, its not whatevers biggest. The earth and the suns gravities interact with one another, not hte sun just pulling on the earth because its the big man on campus in the solar system, its both of there gravities pulling on one another.

Think of it as a big magnet and a little magnet. Just because the big magnet exerts more magnetic force doesn't then mean that he little magnet loses or shuts it's off. They both work together to pull on one another. It's just going to be the little guy that gets moved to the big guy lol.

Of course magnetism is a lot different then gravity, so its not really the best, best, way to describe it. But there are few analogies and comparisons to be made with gravity XD.

2006-12-03 [Fizban]: Ah, I love it!!

That was so lackluster, lacklustre!

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: well,earlier in my circular rotation theory i stated in my opening post to gravity i basiclly agree with what you just said.and the graviton theory,yes,ive heard of this theory before,and it sounds pretty pluasible,yet science hasnt fully cuaght up with it and we dont even know what a graviton should even look like.but i personally support the theory,as it seems to work.as for greater mass being responsible for a larger gravitational pull,my theory behind this is not so much the actual -size- of the mass,but the mass density and the energy contained withen that mass.like the intense energy of the sun being responsible for the massive pull on all planets in teh solar system.i think the same property of mass density and energy (most likely thermal in nature) is in large part responsible for gravitational pull,as evidence has shown that certain energy properties can attract and repulse each other,similar to magnetism,which is a property of electricity applied to certain materials.

2006-12-03 [Dil*]: goddamnit, some arguements are just so fallicious I can't help but poke my head into it. Gravity exists because it is an observable relationship between two objects, it's essentially a 'force'. If we define gravity as a relationship between two objects, as in a larger mass in space affects a smaller mass in space, then of course it exists, game set match.

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: i believe the religuos folk have made the considerable error of believing that secularist have to actually come up with an awnser to the beginning of the universe,when really we maintain the right to admit we dont know,instead of making a bullshit awnser up.

2006-12-03 [Dil*]: *applauds*

We can posit, but saying god did it doesn't make sense :)

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: of course

2006-12-03 [Fizban]: No gravity doesnt ~exist~ because there is an observable relationship. Gravity is the term that describes the effect that gravitons have on all matter and energy, and it happens to be observable. It doesn't need to be seen to be there.

Wrong, I have indeed offered ~no proof~ as to the existence of a creator within another dimension. But that by no means hasn't put the idea within an infinite regression. I simply have nothing more then an idea, that could happen. just because I have no proof doesn't put it in the infinite regression category.

Are you sure your reading what I am writing dil? :O

2006-12-03 [Dil*]: You're not making any sense. Of course gravity exists because we can observe it. It is seen, and it is there. And it exists as a relationship between two objects.

As far as I'm concerned, no proof for god, no god. You can have all the nonsensical ideas you want, but it doesn't mean really mean anything unless you can back it up with some decent logic or empirical evidence.

I have seen the so called logical arguement for first cause, and I have determined them to be flawed on the basis of infinite regression and ockam's razor.

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: "Gravity is the term that describes the effect that gravitons have on all matter and energy, and it happens to be observable. It doesn't need to be seen to be there." that is a contradictory statement.plus occam's razor eliminates the theory of gravitons into the equation until their existence is actually confirmed.

2006-12-03 [Fizban]: I never said gravity didn't exist dil. I said just because we can see it doesn't have any bearing on it in the least, becuase it was stated in a way to suggest that our ability to percieve had an affect on what we were percieving.

Incorrect. It doesnt fall into infinite regression, the stupid idea I came up with, in no way points to an existence to god.

Although, it doesn't fall into infinite regression so stop saying it does, or show me how it does so I can stop irritatingly repeating myself in ever changing fasions on the matter. Because I haven't been stating anything new, just restating things because you didn't seem to read them the first or second time I wrote them.

2006-12-03 [Half-Mad Poet]: i am sorry that i have not been on to argue as i should, nor will i be able to make any long or strong arguments at the moment, but i will make a point real fast. i think that you are indeed placing to much into a theory to disprove another theory. at the very least, you are taking a theory and stating it to be an absolute truth. while occam's razor is a usefull tool, and a very workable piece of logic, it must be realized that it is very much just a theory, and that in many of its defenitions it is more a "the simpelest tends to be true" then a "the simplest is always true". also, like Albert Einstien himself stated, we should try to make something to its simplest, but no less.

i will argue more later but, alas, finals are indeed on there way and research papers need to be written.

p.n
hmp

2006-12-03 [Sedition]: there is no "current" theory on gravity,there are numerous theories.

2006-12-03 [Dil*]: the simplest is most likely true, and also, do not mulitiply entities unneccessarily. If we have enough info. to explain phenomena, then we shouldn't tag more things onto it without reason to do so.

1. Lightning struck down a tree in the forest. (fact)
2. Lightning struck down a tree in the forest because zeus was angry (unnecssary tagging).

1. The universe started from one point and expanded outwards (big bang) - fact
2. The universe started from one point and expanded outwards because the creator willed it (tagging on things without any reason to do so).

2006-12-04 [Sedition]: you should tag that universal expansion from a central point is still a theory,and hasnt techniclly been proven yet,just letting ya know before someone blams you on it.

2006-12-04 [Dil*]: it's a theory that has evidence to support it, we have reason to believe the universe began from one point and expanded outwards, we have no reason to believe 'god made the big bang occur'.

2006-12-04 [Sedition]: i know,but you said it was fact,i was merely stating it was still in theory status so someone else doesnt try to hold it against you.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: "when really we maintain the right to admit we dont know,instead of making a bullshit awnser up."

Hmmm... I admit I don't know. I just like to believe that there's something bigger out there. And as far as I'm concerned, the big bang and evolution are just as much bullshit as creationism and intelligent design.

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: while it is true that the big bang and evolution are both theories,they are theories based off of realistic observations of the universe,were creationism and intelligent design is based off of wishfull thinking.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: Ahh... Realistic observations? Tell me what is so realistic about them? Not as opposed to creationism and/or intelligent design... that's too dan easy. How are they independently based on realistic observations?

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: anyone thats been through highschool science can tell you about red and blue shift,which plays a huge part in the theory of the big bang,wikipedia it since im to lazy to type up a report on it.as for evolution,its pretty much proven by now,creatures physiclly change to adapt to their surroundings,are you denying that?

2006-12-05 [Fizban]: WOW, WHEN DID EVERYONE FORGET HOW TO READ?

DID I EVER SAY "THERES NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY BECAUSEs IT CAN'T BE SEEN"

NO!!!!!!

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: wow,we still talking about gravity?

2006-12-05 [Fizban]: I would hope not. But just a few posts ago dil* addressed it again, as though there was still something to be argued. I would surely hope not, as well as you remarked upon it again. So you tell me were finished, because if it's brought up again, then it will be argued again, so don't bring it up.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: I'm not deny a creatures ability to adapt, but I am denying evolution.

I wasn't asking for a report, just a little evidence. And... I can't find this red and blue shift you speak of. I'm not sure they teach it in my highschool, but I wouldn't know if they did.

Creationism is just as ridiculous as the Big Bang theory. I refuse to settle for either. And... just because I chose to believe in a god, or more correctly, a divine being, doesn't mean I believe it created the world as we know it.

2006-12-05 [Fizban]: Actually, the red and blue shift isn't taught in my high school either, you shouldn't go assuming it is. They don't address the big bang in high school at all, except maybe in a physics, but I wouldn't know because I didn't take that.

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: ah,thats probably the issue,red/blue shift was indeed tuaght in physics class,not a particularly required one in some schools,but i figured the curriculum is generic amongst most public schools in the nation,after the no child left behind bullshit and the "standardization" of education.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: Eh... Standarized bullshit is what it is. But... I won't get started on the flaws of my state legislature and the goverment's ignorance and what not here...

Yeah. Our school is pretty damn small. Our physics class is actaully in a distance learning program with the other high school in the county. Very few students take it at a time. What's more, I'm only a freshman... >.> And I haven't taken extreme measures to get ahead. Partying is much more important ... xD

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: meh,youll regret that later.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: Heh... I'm aware. I don't deny my school work too much. I plan on going to college and getting a degree... and for that, I need a scholarship. So.. I maintain a pretty high GPA and pass all my honors classes. But... I'm not going out of my way to learn much more. I don't have the commitment for it.

Which is probably why I don't like certain scientific theories. I much prefer blaming shit on a god. It's easier to be fickle that way. xD

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: science is amazing,ive always been huge on it ever since i was a child.in 6th grade i won a state wide science fair for coming up with a theoretical process of cuasing man-made rain in the aird regions of africa.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: Hmmm... I've always been more into the arts. I think I'm a Romantic of sorts. Science has always puzzled me. It just doesn't seem like the absolute answer me. But whatever... I'm the kind of person that works on feelings and not facts. An impulsive hedonist... >.< More trouble than its worth. xP

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: im more of rationality,logic,and the scientific method.

2006-12-05 [Dil*]: Your school curriculum sucks

"And as far as I'm concerned, the big bang and evolution are just as much bullshit as creationism and intelligent design."

You may want to research your statements. Or they'll end looking ill-informed and ignorant.

2006-12-05 [ceridwen]: Eh... The only reason I bring up old agruments is because I still don't understand. My school cirriculm isn't the best because of size and location, but I don't think the big bang theory should be taught as fact, like some of the textbooks do. I know a bit about it, but not terribly much.

2006-12-05 [Sedition]: big bang isent tuaght as fact,atleast in my school there is no particular theory taken as fact in science class,they are content with showing you what scientist know so far and letting you make up your own damn mind.intelligent design aint tuaght though,becuase its effing tarded and is just a stupid christian power ploy who otherwise wouldnt give a shit about children's education.

2006-12-05 [Fizban]: Every time my Bio teachers touch on evolution, they always talk about how its a ~theory~ making sure to clerify and tell the students about it.

2006-12-05 [Dil*]: big bang theory is the best one out there, with the most evidence, it's quite scientific, I assure you. Not as established as some other theories, but it's pretty established.

2006-12-05 [lacklustre]: I may be christian but intelligent design is retarded. Evolution is one of those things I think to be truer than the bible. But what do I know I'm only the court jester.

2006-12-05 [Dil*]: Thankyou. (Note: section on addressing attacks on atheism)

2006-12-05 [Fizban]: I actually went and talked with a friend of mine,...he controlled a debate we had in person about intelligent design
(where he was on the side of design, and I was evolution, he was arguing merely for the sake of the debate) And he brought up an attack on evolution about biological parts, he probably knew less on then I did, being a bio major, but I couldn't disprove entirely what he was saying, without knowing specifically the counter argument. It was the most prevalent argument for intelligent design, attack the idea that evolution couldn't occur without all the pieces of the organism being there at the same time. I kept saying they could have individually evolved with prototypes and pre-forms of the biological parts, without needing them first. But I didn't have orchestrated examples to give him to disprove him.

Turns out the asshole has been hired and goes on radio stations for spare cash arguing the point of evolution, and debating the intelligent design-ists. He immediately after I said I didn't have anything to disprove him at that moment, he gave the orchestrated response to disprove the previous ones. He has memorized all the arguments and there perfect rebuttles. XD

I was all ready to go in there, I brought up the fact that he is arguing for complexities need to be designed by more complex things, and he shot that down by holding the argument on the attack at evolution, because he wasn't exactly using intelligent design, just attack evolution and inferring there must be something else if evolution is flawed.

2006-12-06 [Dil*]: Does he support intelligent design or evolution? Just because evolution may have a few flaws, it doesn't make intelligent design right either.

Just because something is wrong, doesn't make the opposition right. So far, intelligent design doesn't even hold up logically, nevermind the complete utter lack of empirical evidence.

2006-12-06 [ceridwen]: Exactly... Just because intelligent design is crap doesn't mean evolution is right. That's exactly why I chose to believe neither.

2006-12-06 [Dil*]: No, evolution is right and intelligent design is crap :P

From every rational viewpoint.

2006-12-06 [ceridwen]: Evolution isn't right. Intelligent design is crap, yes. I won't settle for evolution just because intelligent design is wrong. And... don't ask me why I don't like evolution. It's one of those things, that while I may be wrong, I'm OK with that. Not believing in evolution lets me sleep at night. xP

2006-12-06 [Dil*]: That Makes no sense whatsover.

What's wrong with believing in evolution? actually, you don't even need belief, it's just 'acceptance' of reality.

2006-12-06 [ceridwen]: I know. It's like me being a thiest. No real reason for it. The idea just helps me sleep at night.

Nothing is wrong with believing in evolution. I don't care if anyone else does. It's not acceptance, to me, because it's not reality.

I don't totally refute the theory of evolution. Things evolve, yes. But I don't think the entire living world evolved from one thing. And... If evolution is true, why haven't humans evolved? Are you arogant enough to say humans have already peaked?

Maybe it's just because I'm feeble minded and it doesn't make sense to me. I'm OK with that. What I want to know is why certain people, like yourself, want to force this theory on other people. I don't understand why it's so important.

2006-12-06 [Dil*]: No, we're still changing/evolving

I think I've mentioned this before.

2006-12-06 [ceridwen]: Hmm... Heh. Sometimes it seems like you do. I realize you don't. Sorry.
For once, I get it. Though... I really don't care how the Earth formed, you know? I suppose if its important to learn about the past to know about the present and future, then its important, sure... But if it doesn't, why bother?

But I get it... And I feel like a complete asswipe. >.< Sorry.

2006-12-06 [Dil*]: That's okay.

2006-12-07 [Fizban]: No, no, I said...he debates for the evolutionists agaisnt the idiocy of intelligent design. Thats why he knew exactly what to say when I argued the point of evolution, because he knows all the arguments for both sides, and how to beat either one.

2007-03-11 [Skw3rlch4n]: o.o;; Holy crap....That is a lot of information up there... @.@ I can't read it all...
But if I may say something, not all Christians are like how most people see them as. I accept evolution and God. And a lot of these "Christians" you see are Bible-thumpers. They try to shove the Bible down peoples' throats, and I don't agree to that. Everyone has their own beliefs in whether it is was intelligent design that created us or if we came from monkeys.

2007-03-11 [Fizban]: Actually both of those sorduv say the same thing. Just that one said god made us came from monkeys, and the other one, said we just came from monkesy cause we were bored making sticks and wnated to make automobiles instead.

Either way, lol, we aren't sheltered, we are all aware that christians aren't all like that at all. But thanks for not being like that, and reaffirming the anti-insane faith-faith.

2007-03-11 [Sedition]: ya know,the monkey thing is a bit off key.evolutionist have pointed out time and again to deaf ears that we didnt directly decend from friggin monkies,we just share a similar genetic history.of course no one listens though.

2007-03-11 [Fizban]: Not directly monkeys, but we definitely evolved from something that evolved from something, that evolved from something that would be a simian.

2007-03-12 [Dil*]: Not monkeys, it's apes, the common ancestor of apes.

2007-03-15 [Pyra]: I have something else to say. Ahh, yes, [Dil*]. You may cheer. I'm back
We have evolved, and are still evolving. A few hundred years ago, the average height for a person was about 5 feet 2 inches (Don't know metric. Sorry). Now, the average height for someone is around 5'7-5'9. Big diffence there.

2007-03-16 [Fizban]: Well, I don't wanna say thats not evolution, because thats something we really always were easily capable of. I mean, it could just be that the lastest trends are that taller people have a higher rate of reproduction, and thus pass there taller gene to more and more people, causes the standards of tallness to increase all around.

Or...its evolution XD.

2007-03-16 [Dil*]: 'descent with modification.'

2007-03-17 [Fizban]: so anyone heard abouts the god gene?

2007-03-19 [Dil*]: yes. The one that's supposed to make you more predisposed to religion?

2007-03-20 [ceridwen]: Really?
There's a gene for everything now. One for being gay, another for religious... what's next? A gene that makes your crap smell better?
-.-

2007-03-20 [Fizban]: You say the gay one like its hard to believe. What do you think makes you straight? :O XD

Either way, predisposed is more of an effect.

Directly the gene, if you have the active form, releases comforting horemones when you think of and experience spiritual things. I have an article on the internet I gotta dig out to give for reference.

2007-03-20 [Pyra]: No need for sarcasm.

2007-03-20 [ceridwen]: I'm not straight...

I don't knock the idea completely, I just think it a bit absurd how much people credit to gentics now.
And I felt like making an ass out of myself. Again.
>.> <.<

2007-03-21 [crazycatman]: The idea of a "God gene" is not that unbelievable when you compare it to the idea of a gay gene, which is pretty logical.

The idea of a gay gene is presented in loads of different animals, for example pack animals where you have an alpha male who does all the reproduction and other males who have no mating rights at all, they instead are expected to look after the young. So naturally in human society you'd expect males to fulfil the same position, we just have strange social cultures which suppress it (perhaps not as much nowadays thankfully).

So a God gene is just as likely, survival is increased by lower levels of stress, which could be caused by worrying about where you come from, and the idea of being looked after is comforting. Blind faith however seems to be more of a cultural thing, as I can't see how it is beneficial to survival to believe it is worth dying for a belief that you can't prove. But I suppose that is open to discussion.

So I suppose religion, or perhaps a belief in a creator (as religion itself is man-made) is a natural human state. Unless that gene becomes unhelpful for survival it will always exist, perhaps when religious people start wiping themselves out while the atheists hide in bunkers the belief will be taken with them, or at least the predisposition towards it (there will always be people out there who are easily led by others, cults)

Opinions?

2007-03-21 [Fizban]: Exactly. A statement from one sociologist was "The surprising thing isn't the fact that there are gay people. The surprising thing, is that there aren't more people who are expressing such tendencies" Because there are reports closer to 40-50% for many animal's expressing homosexual tendencies. Mind you I totally butchered that quote but, more or less.

2007-04-02 [Half-Mad Poet]: no worries. more then likely, if it can be accepted that it is indeed in the genetics, the reason it is not expressed as much may indeed be because of the stigma and societal suppression that has been associated with it due to religion.

it is not illogical to think of a god gene, in fact, its more logical then to assmue there is a god.

just a thought.

2007-04-02 [Fizban]: Evolution and science would yes, point to the relevence of such a gene in our survival.

2008-03-09 [hannes]: "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"
- Clark Adams

Just wanted to add another good quote. I like this wiki a lot.

2008-03-19 [NOOOPE]: http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm <- Scariest one sided shit I have ever read. *shivers*

2008-03-23 [crazycatman]: I'm happy not to fit into any of the categories, as none of them seem particularly "good". Good job what he thinks an atheist is not necessarily the truth.

2008-03-24 [Fizban]: He, who is he?

Furthermore, what kind of atheist would you then classify/describe yourself as?

Not to contradict you before you have stated your side of things, however just because your not happy with something either doesn't mean it isn't true. Just because the shoes are a color you don't like, doesn't mean they don't fit.

2008-03-25 [MrE]: thanks for putting this up... really made my day :)
*goes back to his coffee and lab reports*

2008-03-25 [ceridwen]: Oh, I'd almost forgotten about dearest dil's rantings.
Though I still don't identify myself as an atheist, I find all of this more and more reasonable as time goes on.
=/

2008-03-26 [Fizban]: I was the same way...way back when. One very very poor discussion to dil was me in favor of religion, must have been 2 years or so ago. Then, slowly over time, it made more and more sense,...and now I cringe at religious anything lol ^_^.

2008-03-26 [ceridwen]: Well, even in talking to dil I wasn't religious, but I could see the point in it. Now, I don't. It's all frivolous. But, I still think that as long as someone doesn't infringe on my rights, they can believe whatever bullshit they want.

2008-03-27 [Fizban]: or otherwise. I am agnostic. I will not tell anyone else what is actually true. I don't know, and I admit I don't know. I don't know christianity isn't true, so I have no right to tell someone it isn't. I don't think it is, and I can list my reasons for not thinking it is, but I don't believe in trying to moderate other people based on their religoun.

2008-03-30 [ceridwen]: Exactly.
:3

It's nice to talk to another agnostic every now and then. Sometimes I really hate this town. It's almost like you're either a Christian or at least go to church/mass or you're a full blown atheist.

2008-03-30 [Fizban]: LOL. It's easier in certain respects to go those routes. Now, I think it is very easy to be Christian full blown, and quite the opposite to be an atheist, especially around other Christians. But I agree its hard to be Christian around Atheists as well. Either way, being agnostic, people can see you as not having made up your mind, and that you still need to pick a side in this "black and white" fight. Thats just how it can feel, like their are only two sides, believers or non. But, we are just another part to that equation, whether or not people realize it.

2009-10-30 [Mortified Penguin]: Anyone still here? You better freakin' be, because I better not have typed all this for nothing...

 

2009-10-30 [lacklustre]: Absolute genius. Not saying I agree one way or another though mind it's nice. You're concise in your explanation. Simply put you're a troll with a flame thrower now watch as people post in defense.

2009-10-30 [Mortified Penguin]: Assuming there are people still lurking here. I have a tendency to show up a few years too late on wikis... *eats ramen*...

2009-10-30 [MrE]: Without being long-winded (or particularly expressive), since I realised it's time to go to work, my counter-pitch is:
Sometimes it IS meaningful to question the beliefs of others, harmful to their faith/hope/meaning in life as it may be. The reason is that this is how we achieve progress in all other aspects of life (show me something successful which has stayed static over such a long period of time).

As a researcher, the one thing I know I cannot have is faith, since that would eliminate the reason for trying to prove anything. With faith, there is no need for proof, without proof, knowledge is merely assumptions about unknowns.

Thus, people who hold these beliefs in my mind struggle in the wrong direction, and devote their precious time in life to pointless pursuits and submission to some fictitious metaphysical entity that will astrally bitch-slap them if they don't do as they're told. What's wrong with building a society based on mutual enjoyment of life and cooperation, or indeed whatever political ideals you subscribe to? Just because you want to enjoy life doesn't mean you will do it at other people's expense - at least I in general don't LIKE hurting people.

NB: "Political ideals" here denotes ideas and values for building a working society, presented as THEORY and nothing more. It does not include supernatural scare tactics and thus, not religion.

In summation: No, one does not need an imaginary friend for moral guidance or a purpose in life, and I subject rather (to paraphrase) that it is to accept the existence of religion that is to accept "madness"

Time for work, I must now go conform and bow to others. Have a nice day!

2009-10-30 [Mortified Penguin]: So you accept that everything you do is pointless in the grand scheme of things? That your life is completely without meaning?

How can you possibly have peace of mind if you believe that? Religious people are able to have peace, because they believe that eternal happiness awaits them.

"people who hold these beliefs struggle in the wrong direction, and devote their precious time in life to pointless pursuits"

How is what their pursuits any more pointless than yours? If there is no God, no matter which way you look at it, it's all pointless. However, for them, there is at least peace of mind and a reason to go on.

My main reason in arguing (other than because I'm a douche who has nothing better to do) is to point out that atheists who go around trying to convince people that there is no God, are only doing it for selfish reasons. What do you hope to gain by taking away someone's faith? If you succeed, all they're left with is a realization of hopelessness. Their lives lose meaning without religion. However, when a religious person tries to argue with an atheist, they are arguing to maybe save someone's soul from eternal agony in Hell. They argue for the sake of giving people a reason to live.

And apparently you didn't fully understand me earlier when I told you to eat at Bob's Diner, because I'm still not seeing you there.

2009-10-30 [Mortified Penguin]: Besides... How can you possibly accept the laws of physics and still deny a God or some other form of creator?

Atheists believe that a big bang created our universe. However, according to the law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How then did the universe come to be? The only plausible way is for something not bound by the laws of physics to have created it. To deny God is to deny science and facts.

God initiated the big bang and brought about the creation all of life as we know it. However, he is not a part of our universe, meaning that he's not bound by its rules and limitations. He is in an entire other plane of existence, one where he can do anything he pleases. He isn't bound by time or space, so it's completely reasonable that he has and always will be in existence.

2009-10-30 [Duke Devlin]: Mort: Atheists do not necessarily believe that the 'Big Bang' caused the universe. They merely accept it as a possible theory.
What I don't understand - in reading the last two comments, from Mort - is why people assume that the existence of a 'god' automatically means that there is a point to everything. And that there is a 'heaven' or 'hell'. Why does this have to be the case?
Anyway, the reason some atheists try to encourage others towards beliefs is not only selfish. I personally do not try to convince others of atheism, as I feel that the majority of theists will not listen in the slightest to it, or even give the non-existence of god a second thought. However, other atheists may do it simply because they want people to enjoy their lives without the constraints put in place by the writers of these faith texts (which we really can't be sure are really authentic - I mean really... God's son jumped down to earth and taught us loads of stuff? Which were then remembered by people hundreds of years later and written in book form? Likely. I mean... Memories are good, but things probably got warped in that time. - Please note that I am only referring to Christianity here, for now, as it is easiest). Wouldn't you like to be liberated in such a way? God is supposedly forgiving, so surely he would forgive if you strayed from your faith, to enjoy the life you have been given?

2009-10-30 [MrE]: The notion of a "grand scheme" is part of the problem, because there simply isn't one, and what gives me a purpose in life is to strive for the well-being of myself and those around me.
Second, no person in their right mind "accepts" the laws of physics, as they are not laws in the proper sense, but model assumptions that will have to do for the moment - until something better comes along (which has happened numerous times). The true governing principles will most likely never be fully known. Since I have spent the last six years of my university studies learning about these principles and putting them to the test, I feel that you in fact have missed the mark here and are on turf that is far from your own.
In regards to my statement about people, their beliefs, and the directions they take - their pursuits are not pointless in the sense that they don't lead to peace of mind, but in the sense that they lead to restrictions not only of their personal freedom, but of mine and everybody else's.
Lack of faith is not hopelessness - it's self-determination.
And please don't ever use words like "science" or "fact". It is a blatant disregard for what those principles stand for and in my (personal) view the most genuinely offensive thing you have spouted so far.

2009-10-30 [Mortified Penguin]: no person in their right mind "accepts" the laws of physics, as they are not laws in the proper sense, but model assumptions that will have to do for the moment - until something better comes along

Exactly. Laws, in the scientific community, are the most certain, unchangeable things. However, even these laws are faulty. And if these most basic laws can't even be trusted, you can never be absolutely sure of anything. You can only, as you said, make model assumptions about things.

Yet, though you seem to agree that nothing is certain and there can be no absolutes, you say you are absolutely certain there is no God. As an atheist you, rather than have faith in a higher power or anything like that, place your faith solely in the flawed laws of science. You consider a theist's views to be flawed and unacceptable, yet you place your beliefs in something that is just as flawed. You are a hypocrite.

Neither atheists nor theists have beliefs rooted in logic. The theists have faith in metaphysical things, whereas atheists have faith in the physical world that doesn't allow for the existence of a God. Both viewpoints are heavily flawed and both rely on absolutes. For atheism to be true, there can be absolutely no possibility of a God. But there is no way to know if a God is impossible or not, because nothing is certain.

The only logical way to look at the universe is to see it from an agnostic's point of view. They take into consideration facts from all points of views, rather than instantly deciding on an absolute. Agnostics are the only ones who are truly open minded.

So, I ask you... Why do you consider yourself an atheist? How can you be absolutely sure in a universe that doesn't allow for absolutes?

Granted, there is one absolution... it's absolutely true that Bob's Diner will have great deals every day of the week! Stop on by and pick up some slug nuggets today!

2009-10-31 [hannes]: i'm a scientist ([MrE], why is science such a horrible word?) and an atheist, and the reason why i don't believe in a supernatural being (or many) is that there is no proof of any, nor any need for any to explain the world. of course, if it was shown that there is one or many gods, and sufficient evidence was presented to support it, i would happily accept it. that's the thing: if someone showed it, backed by good enough evidence, i'd believe in flying pink elephants, the flying spaghetti monster, unicorns and a big teapot around mars.

agnosticism, on the other hand, is a word i don't need in my vocabulary because it's the state of everything: to be a scientist, you have to be an agnostic about everything you study, and being absolutely sure about something is of course stupid. but to be able to make decisions and live a life, you have to draw some lines somewhere. i, for instance, belive in the physical law of gravity, which is why i'm not going to jump out from my balcony on the sixth floor when i go to uni. i can describe my life and the world around me very well without involving bearded men up in the heavens, though - actually, one of the many objections i have to religion is that it seems too easy a solution to the problems we have in explaining the world, and it can kill the beautiful curiosity and the will to explore that we have. the easiest solution is seldom the right one.

as a scientist, i don't have faith in the laws of science; i believe in the scientific process, which involves observation, experimentation and lots of critical thinking. as tim minchin puts it in his brilliant beat poem 'storm':

Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

2009-10-31 [MrE]: maalik: "science" is a wonderful word, and a wonderful concept (scientific research is what I do every day), but it shouldn't be used by people who don't understand it's meaning and say things like "To deny God is to deny science and facts" as Mort did above, that was my point. Did you actually read the post? Just to clarify - I wholeheartedly agree with most of what you say.

And yes, Mort, as you pointed out - I am a hypocrite in the sense that I consider myself convinced of the non-existence of God when all aspects of the world are not known or understood. This said, there has been plenty of evidence (yes, evidence - the real stuff) leading me to this view, whereas I cannot see a shred the same for the theistic viewpoint. My belief in things are directly proportional to the amount of evidence of their presence. This is not true of the theistic world views, as any empirical evidence of the flaws in their views is almost automatically suppressed and declared heresy. The worst example of this is Christianity, where the God-being is inherently flawless and omnipotent, which has led to valuable knowledge being suppressed through the ages simply because it wasn't appealing to the church or wholly compatible with their teachings. The whole argument has always been "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" - which totally fails to face the contrary indications presented.
Come back and present your theory when you have evidence, until then, I'll be here.

2009-10-31 [hannes]: MrE, i read your post too fast and misunderstood what you were saying. sorry about that. X)

2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: I have no proof. I'm not seeking to prove the existence of a God, but rather to show you that it's not impossible. Yes, the theistic visualization of 'God' is heavily flawed in all religions, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. There could be a being out there named 'Larry' that created this universe for the heck of it. We could all just be data in his program, thinking and acting in accordance with a script 'Larry' wrote. It is highly unlikely, but not necessarily impossible. You don't have any idea of how this universe came to be, so how could you know for certain that it wasn't 'Larry'? You can't disprove that 'Larry' did it, because you can't prove that anything else did it. Therefore, you can't be absolutely sure that a God didn't create this universe until you are able to prove otherwise.

You can't logically deny the possibility of the existence of a God. You can deny the existence itself, but not the possibility of it. Like I said earlier though, I'm not arguing for theism, but agnosticism. Atheism is just as bad as theism, because both viewpoints are narrow minded.

And as for you [hannes], I had a rather large thing typed out in response to almost everything you said, but this piece of crap computer messed up and I lost it. Your entire argument is full of holes and is, overall, just plain terrible. I'll be damned if I'm going to re-type my response again, because I'm too freakin' lazy.

2009-10-31 [hannes]: that's fine, mort: it might've been nice to read your response, but i'm fairly sure i've heard everything you were going to say anyway. :)

you are arguing for agnosticism, apparently, and i'm saying i am a true agnostic, not only when it comes to the existence of gods. i am open to the existence of anything: but i'm not going to restrict my actions in accordance to every fantasy creature that people come up with. this is why i think having 'agnostic' as your answer when it comes to questions about the existence of god or anything else is silly. and i can't imagine how boring arguments with true 'excercising' agnostics must be.. "sure, that can be the case too, since we can't verify or deny anything". :P

2009-10-31 [Fizban]: Lol...oy vey. This site was adorable, I have to say a slight bit more of maturity is held with the current arguments, probably because its been years since everyone has been here, and we are more grown up. But watch that we don't slip into trash talking everyone.
Oy! It was sooo annoying to catch up to this point, I was like, damn I missed alot!

What I would like to argue against is your "grand scheme of things"

What does size have to do with the grand scheme of things? Why does my relative physical size have to correlate to how important I am? I don't believe that just because I am nothing but a wink in the time line of the universe that makes me pointless. As an agnostic who has come up with Atheism as the current best explanation until otherwise shown, it was I admit a bit of an..."ut oh, now that I can't find it in me to believe in some estranged higher power this book talks about, what do I do!?" 
Then I sat down for a bit, and it was really easy to give meaning to everything, because I care. Not believing in god didn't take any of my morals away, frankly it strengthened them, because I know that if I do something wrong, I can't just apologize for it to Mr. Eternal up there, and it will all be okay. I am the end of the line in terms of my actions, and I care about how I affect other people, so I would do nothing to negatively affect them.

There is a reason atheists don't go around trying to instill anarchy. I realize I am in a society with rules, and just because I don't think there will be some sort of magic fairy tale ending doesn't mean I have lost the worth of my own life. Sure I am an atom in comparison to the universe, and?
Atoms clump together to form elements, which clump together to form compounds, molecules, and so forth. I am a building block, and I interact within the world that I am not so tiny and voiceless.

The premise for your first argument was that, we are so small we need to believe in something so big, or else it's just pointless to be so small. Well, I don't see why size is relative to meaning. The smallest things frequently have a surprising affect in life.

(maalik I love you and that quote!)

2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: Can you prove, without a single bit of doubt, that God absolutely does not exist? Yes or no.

2009-10-31 [Fizban]: Nope. :) Can you prove without a single bit of doubt, that God absolutely does exist? Yay, or Nay.

2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: Nope. Sure can't.

But that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to point out that atheism isn't rooted in logic.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, so you can't be absolutely, 100% sure of it. And since you can't be 100% sure, you can't be an atheist.

The only logical choice is not theism or atheism, but agnosticism.

2009-10-31 [lacklustre]: That's the funny thing about logic and reason versus emotion. Where as Logic will prove something correct. Emotion is unpredictable and can cause the death of logic. Try dealing with bible belters. They'll tear you a new one before the cops can get there. And I've seen it happen. It doesn't matter how much you've either proved or disproved zealots'll get you one way or another.

2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: While I'm sure that's an accurate statement, it doesn't necessarily deal with my attempt to convince the people here that agnosticism is the way to go.

Do you admit that atheism is as illogical as theism or not?

2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: It's like this:

2009-11-01 [lacklustre]: I don't disagree however I cannot agree. More or less I have to fence sit on this one. Seen a lot of crazy stuff go down. And I highly doubt physics was to play a role in that.

2009-11-01 [Fizban]: I agree. I said I was agnostic, with the suspicion that its blue, because arguments for red really suck in my opinion. I know irrelevant of the arguments, it doesn't change the probability of the color, however based on what I know, I have an Idea of what the color could be. However, as I said I know I don't know.

That doesn't address what I said however...you didn't react to my argument at all...:O

Sure there is still a brick wall, but your arguments surrounding that brick wall are flawed, and I have said reasons as to why.

2009-11-01 [Mortified Penguin]: What are the rewards of a universe without a God or an afterlife? What's the point in existing if you're going to disappear one day and be buried in the sands of time? You'll be forgotten and all your accomplishments will be for nothing. It's a depressing thing to think about for most. It's better if people truly believe they're going to find a peaceful afterlife once they die.

The premise for your first argument was that, we are so small we need to believe in something so big, or else it's just pointless to be so small.

The point wasn't to show that size is relevant to importance, but to show that without a God, your existence has no meaning. The description of the vastness of space was simply a literary device used to get you in the mindset of being insignificant compared to it all. Heck, you could be the size of a star (ha ha! fat joke) and your existence would still be equally as meaningless.

Now, when I say 'meaningless' and 'pointless', I mean exactly that. What good is your existence? What good is the existence of the Earth and all its inhabitants? Things may be meaningful to you and you may be meaningful to the entire world, but to the universe, you're nothing. You don't matter.

However, I want you to completely ignore all of that that I just said, because that's not my purpose here. My purpose was to get the people here to see that atheism isn't logical. Furthering the discussion about the meaning of existence and all the crap is purposeless. It isn't helping me to achieve my goal here.

So far, you have said you were already agnostic anyway, so talking with you any further is meritless.

[lacklustre] said that he/she/it was 'on the fence', which would mean that he/she/it is agnostic whether he/she/it likes it or not.

I'm still waiting for acceptance or a rebuttal from the other two still present here.

My other goal is to get you to eat at Bob's Diner. Did you know that Bob's Diner is now serving real meat by-products? It's true! Our burgers are now only 59% rat feces! That's only 22% more than McDonald's!

2009-11-01 [Mortified Penguin]: Of course, you can choose to be an atheist if you want, just don't claim to be the one whose beliefs are based on logic, but that's not true. Atheism is faith based, just like theism. You have faith that you're the one who's right and that the color behind that wall is blue. It's faith that leads you to your decision, not logic.

2009-11-01 [Fizban]: While as I said, I completely disagree with life being meaningless without god, and that I think that it's more sad to need said ideal to be able to have meaning. You continue to give your opinions on worth to base happiness, I am content with existence and life without god, I believe I have meaning and this belief has nothing to do with god, which means boom! One does not need god to have meaning for their life, so saying that its necessary is inaccurate.

But if all your going for the is the agnosticism route, then knock yourself out.

2009-11-01 [lacklustre]: well if it's a he/she/it then it's shit. We all got a gender.

Simply put, don't roll me into anything. I'll make my own decisions-thanks.

2009-11-01 [Mortified Penguin]: You can make your own decisions. However, you can't claim to be on the side of logic and still believe in atheism without being a liar. You can be atheist all you want, as long as you admit that your belief is rooted only in faith.

2009-11-02 [lacklustre]: I didn't say I did believe atheism. Even then being a liar is an opinion based on facts and even then it's part of bias.

2009-11-14 [Duke Devlin]: I have faith that my atheism is rooted in logic as I understand it.
But moving on - I personally do not believe in a god, of any kind, because there seems no logical reason to spend your life worshipping something that you can't be sure of (either way). I'd rather spend my time enjoying the life I have been given, and if there is a god, be forgiven at the end of it (after death, not repenting) for my disbelief. I would have not wasted the life I had.

2009-11-15 [Mortified Penguin]: I don't care about your misguided views on religion anymore... I'm bored with this argument!

2009-11-15 [Fizban]: Lol, ofcourse you are. Go on Duke Devlin!`

2009-11-15 [lacklustre]: I love delusions of eloquence.

2009-11-19 [Duke Devlin]: LMAO thank ya, Fiz. ;D

2009-11-19 [Duke Devlin]: Also Lacklustre, get over yourself. :)

2009-11-19 [lacklustre]: please don't capitalize my name.

2009-11-19 [Duke Devlin]: I'm sorry - lacklustre.

2009-11-19 [lacklustre]: well there ye be Duke Devlin!

2009-11-20 [Mortified Penguin]: Shut up, Blockbuster! *smacks you*

2009-11-22 [Duke Devlin]: LMAO