This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
576048
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Well, it isn't just an argument about what people believe, because a fair number of people here acquired their set of beliefs as a young kid. The Christian community has been trying to teach the Bible as fact for a long time now, and that just isn't reasonable. What children need to be taught is science and logical reasoning, because very, very few things have come out of Christian faith (or most other religions for that matter) that have been for the greater good of humanity (Bayesian probability is one of the few things that comes to mind).
Post by
Asylu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYS-GzBSIg
Douglas Adams said it best at the start of 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'.
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
You can't really argue that it hasn't made a lot of people angry and that is was a bad move. Just read this thread.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
If God were infinite, and always there, it would satisfy the question. The problem of what comes before the big bang though, cannot be satisfied by answer.
"The Big Bang from our perspective, is one of an infinite loop of Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang cycle. It has always been this way."
That explanation would remove the need for a beginning, and is also possible.
Except, where did the first one come from?
Post by
TheMediator
If God were infinite, and always there, it would satisfy the question. The problem of what comes before the big bang though, cannot be satisfied by answer.
"The Big Bang from our perspective, is one of an infinite loop of Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang cycle. It has always been this way."
That explanation would remove the need for a beginning, and is also possible.
Except, where did the first one come from?
There wasn't a first one. If you can have an always existing God, why can't you have an always existing universe?
Alternatively, you could say that prior to time existing causality didn't function in the way we understand it, and so something can happen without cause.
Post by
Adamsm
If God were infinite, and always there, it would satisfy the question. The problem of what comes before the big bang though, cannot be satisfied by answer.
"The Big Bang from our perspective, is one of an infinite loop of Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang cycle. It has always been this way."
That explanation would remove the need for a beginning, and is also possible.
Except, where did the first one come from?
There wasn't a first one. If you can have an always existing God, why can't you have an always existing universe?
Alternatively, you could say that prior to time existing causality didn't function in the way we understand it, and so something can happen without cause.
Other then 'God', nearly every other religion/belief whatever, does have a myth about where they came from.
Post by
MyTie
If you can have an always existing God, why can't you have an always existing universe?
As long as you continue to look at this as an 'us versus them' type of arguement, it will always be an arguement. Why not just keep an open mind and listen?
Post by
TheMediator
If you can have an always existing God, why can't you have an always existing universe?
As long as you continue to look at this as an 'us versus them' type of arguement, it will always be an arguement. Why not just keep an open mind and listen?
That didn't answer the question. Why is it acceptable to consider that a being could exist forever, but not that the universe could exist forever?
Post by
MyTie
That didn't answer the question. Why is it acceptable to consider that a being could exist forever, but not that the universe could exist forever?
It isn't. I just personally find one more believable.
Post by
Skreeran
Again, it also leaves you in a position where you can't disprove that there is a God. As an agnostic, I accept that there may be a God. At no point have I chosen nor attempted to define what he is. But I'm not foolhardy enough to attempt to prove that he doesn't exist, which is the cornerstone of what an athiest is - someone who believes that there is no God.No, I am someone who does not believe there is a god. There is a difference.
And I conceded that my numbers are wrong. But I still pointed out that the Drake Equation is woefully biased. And you're not denying that.Then I'm afraid I don't get your point. You brought up the Drake equation as evidence for the improbability of life, and now you're saying that it's not a strong source? Well then what's your point?
Again, if you want to demonstrate your athiesm, you need to demonstrate that there isn't a God. I don't think that the theory of evolution or the Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive. You seem to suggest that they are. Well, prove it!As I said, I'm an atheist in the same sense that I'm an a-leprechaun-ist. They may very well exist. I do not believe they do. I think that belief in them should be based on some sort of evidence, rather than just faith in leprechauns.
Post by
MyTie
As I said, I'm an atheist in the same sense that I'm an a-leprechaun-ist. They may very well exist. I do not believe they do. I think that belief in them should be based on some sort of evidence, rather than just faith in leprechauns.
I try to be patient, but even I get tired of being mocked.
So where is that thread you promised me?
Post by
MyTie
First of all, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The universe's origins are nothing like a dryer, for one thing.
ZOMG!
No way
!
I worked pretty hard on this, but I posted it in the middle of the night, and I don't think you saw it before it got buried. Here it is Skreeran. Just for you.
Post by
Skreeran
As I said, I'm an atheist in the same sense that I'm an a-leprechaun-ist. They may very well exist. I do not believe they do. I think that belief in them should be based on some sort of evidence, rather than just faith in leprechauns.
I try to be patient, but even I get tired of being mocked.
So where is that thread you promised me?Just posted it. ;)
First of all, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The universe's origins are nothing like a dryer, for one thing.
ZOMG!
No way
!
I worked pretty hard on this, but I posted it in the middle of the night, and I don't think you saw it before it got buried. Here it is Skreeran. Just for you.I admit, I chuckled.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
On a slightly related note, and something I think everyone will enjoy:
This
.
Post by
Monday
My this did get far.
God is as real as Star Wars.
-Fiction-
Shutup. I can't believe I'm even gracing that post with a quote.
Post by
Squishalot
As I said, I'm an atheist in the same sense that I'm an a-leprechaun-ist. They may very well exist. I do not believe they do. I think that belief in them should be based on some sort of evidence, rather than just faith in leprechauns.
You say that you don't believe that there is a god. By definition, that means you believe that there is no god, presuming you have a belief in something at all.
So it comes down to this again - if you belief passionately enough that there isn't a God, enough to ask Christians to prove the existance of their God, it's only reasonable that you should be able to prove why you believe that there isn't a God.
What this says is, you don't believe truly enough that there isn't a God to really be an atheist. You're still a fence sitter :)
Athiests, by definition, are people who believe that there is no God. Not that they don't believe there is a god, but that
they believe there is no God
. People who don't believe in anything are fence sitters - they're not committed to any side.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
As I said, I'm an atheist in the same sense that I'm an a-leprechaun-ist. They may very well exist. I do not believe they do. I think that belief in them should be based on some sort of evidence, rather than just faith in leprechauns.
You say that you don't believe that there is a god. By definition, that means you believe that there is no god, presuming you have a belief in something at all.Incorrect. There is a difference. Do I believe that person abducting little green men exist? No. I have seen no pursuading evidence to make me believe so. Do I believe that they
don't
exist? Not necessarily.
One is a believe (I believe there is no God).
The other is a lack of belief. (I don't believe there is a God.)
So it comes down to this again - if you belief passionately enough that there isn't a God, enough to ask Christians to prove the existance of their God, it's only reasonable that you should be able to prove why you believe that there isn't a God.I don't believe there is a god because there is no reason for me to believe in a god. Give me a good reason (not just "If A is true, then the only explanation is God" but some actual evidence for God) to believe, and I just might change my mind
What this says is, you don't believe truly enough that there isn't a God to really be an atheist. You're still a fence sitter :)Not entirely correct either. I don't think there's really a flat line between agnostism and atheism. It's more of a spectrum. I don't say "There is no god, and I can prove it!" but nor do I say "There is an equal chance that he exists as there is that he doesn't."
I do not beleive he exists. I do not believe the Death Star actually exists. I am open to being proven wrong, but there is no reason for me to believe in either.
Think of it this way. If I say I'm telekinetic, but refuse to show you any real evidence, you have no reason to beleive that I actually have telekinesis. You don't have to (and actually cannot) prove that I don't have it. I have to prove that I do.
Athiests, by definition, are people who believe that there is no God. Not that they don't believe there is a god, but that
they believe there is no God
. People who don't believe in anything are fence sitters - they're not committed to any side.I think we're just arguing over semantics at this point.
Most people who I know that are "agnostic," basically say "there's a fair chance that god could exist, but I don't know."
I say "We have no more reason to believe in gods than we do any other mythical creature. Perhaps there is one, but the evidence doesn't support that idea."
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.