God or no God [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : God or no God


FCoulter
07-07-2012, 06:33
http://cbcg.org/booklets/booklet_God_Or_no_God.html

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 07:05
Which of these "clues from science" do you propose as the strongest evidence for God?

Smacktard
07-07-2012, 08:49
No God, next question.


...

FCoulter
07-07-2012, 10:55
Which of these "clues from science" do you propose as the strongest evidence for God?
DId you read the booklet? After you have we can discuss it.

Phaze5ive
07-07-2012, 11:02
You posed the question of whether or not there exists a god, but then you only link to a source that claims that there is a god and you won't accept debate from anyone that hasn't read your link.

This is going to be a fair and objective thread...

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 11:08
:dunno:

Currently, there is no convincing answer one way or the other. Choose if you need to, and try to be comfortable enough with that choice to accept that other people make different choices. Seems reasonable to me.

JBnTX
07-07-2012, 11:10
There is a God!
There's no evidence by design and for a purpose.

Animal Mother
07-07-2012, 15:43
DId you read the booklet? After you have we can discuss it.yes, I did.

JGlockman
07-07-2012, 16:06
No God.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

NMG26
07-07-2012, 16:12
Be the Archetype. That way it does not matter if there is a God or not.

cowboywannabe
07-07-2012, 16:14
i dont see evidence of God, but science still leaves a lot unexplained.....my jury is still out.

JGlockman
07-07-2012, 16:20
I've been to the natural history museum. I have seen dinosaur bones. I have yet to see a god bone. Or even a jesus bone.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Bren
07-07-2012, 16:31
I saw one clearly true statement in the booklet:
Intelligent, rational people realize that any faith in a God to whom they’re going to commit their life needs to be based on a much more firm footing than mere self-persuasion.

Unfortunately, they go on from there to argue that the scientific reason for believing in god is that science can't explain some things, therefore god did it. Basically a lot of words to present the weakest, most flawed argument in favor of god that could be made.

To their credit, they did follow it up with "even if science is right, that may not disprove god" just to cover all bets. :rofl:

They may have mixed in the old "the universe is perfectly tuned for our existence" as proof of god (intelligent design type argument). The defect in that one is, "the universe is designed for what we are" is the flip side of "we are what we are because of the conditions in the universe" which, fortunately, requires no supernatural source and, therefore, is the correct answer (google: Occam's Razor).

For extra humor, they bring up the old "Law of Biogenesis" as though it is a science conflict, rather than a fictional conflict based on "science" from 150 years ago, dealing with whether living things, now, could suddenly spring to life fully formed from nonliving elements. It appears to only be mentioned these days by religious literalists.

In short, that booklet doesn't even rank among the better obviously false religious arguments against science.

FCoulter
07-07-2012, 16:33
I've been to the natural history museum. I have seen dinosaur bones. I have yet to see a god bone. Or even a jesus bone.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
So do you think that if you believe in dinosaurs you cant believe in God?

Bren
07-07-2012, 16:34
i dont see evidence of God, but science still leaves a lot unexplained.....my jury is still out.

If there is no evidence of god, then the jury is not out.

Since you use a legal analogy - if there is no evidence, you have failed to state a claim and your action is frivolous, therefore there is nothing for a jury to decide.

In this argument, "no evidence of god" (which I agree with) means god is just as likely to exist as fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, and the fire-breathing dragon in my basement. Which is to say, for all practical purposes, he does not exist, just like those other things.

cowboywannabe
07-07-2012, 16:44
If there is no evidence of god, then the jury is not out.

Since you use a legal analogy - if there is no evidence, you have failed to state a claim and your action is frivolous, therefore there is nothing for a jury to decide.

In this argument, "no evidence of god" (which I agree with) means god is just as likely to exist as fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, and the fire-breathing dragon in my basement. Which is to say, for all practical purposes, he does not exist, just like those other things.

somebody is dead from a non self inflicted gunshot wound....some argue that Joe did it, some argue that Joe wasnt even in the state when it happened. no proof (yet) one way or the other for either argument. waiting on the proof does not mean there isnt any.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 16:51
somebody is dead from a non self inflicted gunshot wound....some argue that Joe did it, some argue that Joe wasnt even in the state when it happened. no proof (yet) one way or the other for either argument. waiting on the proof does not mean there isnt any.

Also important to differentiate between proof and truth. Truth is what it is. Proof is what you can convince 12 other people is the truth.

cowboywannabe
07-07-2012, 16:58
Also important to differentiate between proof and truth. Truth is what it is. Proof is what you can convince 12 other people is the truth.

two shea dear doctor.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 17:49
two shea dear doctor.

Just "doc" . Retired Army PA

High-Gear
07-07-2012, 20:11
somebody is dead from a non self inflicted gunshot wound....some argue that Joe did it, some argue that Joe wasnt even in the state when it happened. no proof (yet) one way or the other for either argument. waiting on the proof does not mean there isnt any.

You would have to have some proof Joe did it to get past an arraignment, and to a jury before the jury could be "out". You don't even have enough of a case for god to garner a warrant let alone make it any further with your analogy.

Cavalry Doc
07-07-2012, 20:29
You would have to have some proof Joe did it to get past an arraignment, and to a jury before the jury could be "out". You don't even have enough of a case for god to garner a warrant let alone make it any further with your analogy.

Is there enough evidence that there isn't a god to get a warrant for someone claiming there was, or to file a missing persons report?

Science is cool, awesome, and very interesting. And still, there is no evidence within science to support or negate the existence of deities. It is a choice people make to believe one way or the other. And they have a right to make that choice, as protected by the first amendment.

Tilley
07-08-2012, 01:37
...dealing with whether living things, now, could suddenly spring to life fully formed from nonliving elements. It appears to only be mentioned these days by religious literalists.Gee Bren...you are smarter than 99% of all human beings. Perhaps you can explain to me how life came from non-life; how organic material came about on an inorganic planet.

Please Bren! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze! :upeyes:

GreenDrake
07-08-2012, 05:23
Nope no Haysoose, no god, no allah, no kidding. People are awesome at convincing themselves otherwise. It's self affirming to believe they serve a purpose cloaked in self congratulatory arrogance.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 06:22
Nope no Haysoose, no god, no allah, no kidding. People are awesome at convincing themselves otherwise. It's self affirming to believe they serve a purpose cloaked in self congratulatory arrogance.

There is lots of evidence of self congratulatory arrogance in this forum, but I seem to see more of that from the other side of the coin. Even to the point of hostility when it's pointed out that they too have made a choice in what to believe, without evidence to support that choice.

ksg0245
07-08-2012, 07:35
There is lots of evidence of self congratulatory arrogance in this forum, but I seem to see more of that from the other side of the coin. Even to the point of hostility when it's pointed out that they too have made a choice in what to believe, without evidence to support that choice.

Not hostility; just rejecting a repeated incorrect claim.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 07:37
Not hostility; just rejecting a repeated incorrect claim.

Not hostility???


Sure, if you say so. :rofl:

Bren
07-08-2012, 08:34
somebody is dead from a non self inflicted gunshot wound....some argue that Joe did it, some argue that Joe wasnt even in the state when it happened. no proof (yet) one way or the other for either argument. waiting on the proof does not mean there isnt any.

That isn't a case with "no evidence" - you just described evidence that the event did happen ("somebody is dead"). As for Joe, if there is evidence that he did it, then you are right, but if there is not and it is just "somebody said" then it is exactly what I said above - no case has been stated against Joe, no charge will be brought and there is no jury.

If your analogy worked the way you seem to think, then when a crime happens I could just say, "that sounds like something cowboywannabe would do" and you'd be charged, go t trial and a jury would decide. That doesn't even happen in the worst low-budget movies.

Instead, to make a legal claim that Joe did it that would even require examination of evidence against him, we'd have to start with the person making the positive claim ("he did it") putting forth enough evidence to justify further debate. That is why atheists say "there is no god" just as courts would say "Joe is not guilty" because no evidence has been offered by the side bearing the burden of proof.

Bren
07-08-2012, 08:42
Is there enough evidence that there isn't a god to get a warrant for someone claiming there was, or to file a missing persons report?

Science is cool, awesome, and very interesting. And still, there is no evidence within science to support or negate the existence of deities. It is a choice people make to believe one way or the other. And they have a right to make that choice, as protected by the first amendment.

Basic logical reasoning - why would there be evidence that there is "no god" when there is no evidence that there is one (or some, depending on which of many religions you wish to prove). It's like saying "prove there are no mermaids."

"You can't disprove the existence of things for which there is no evidence of existence" is true - especially true when those things are alleged to exist outside any place where they coukld be observed. However, it is true for anything you can make up from your imagination, so it is hardly a compelling argument for god(s).

FCoulter
07-08-2012, 08:45
THis is so typical of this forum. I posted a link to a short booklet, the atheist jump into this thread and spill their beliefs and not one of them address anything brought up in the booklet.

Seriously guys why dont you just start a sub forum for non believers, so believers can discuss God without people jumping in that have NO clue whom the God family actually is.

Animal Mother
07-08-2012, 10:18
THis is so typical of this forum. I posted a link to a short booklet, the atheist jump into this thread and spill their beliefs and not one of them address anything brought up in the booklet.Everything addressed in the booklet has been addressed here multiple times. The simple fact it contains a line like, "” An excellent documentary by Ben Stein, entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, also points out how the supposedly “open-minded” academic community shows its intolerance of any dissent from the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm." demonstrates both its bias and departure from facts.

You were asked which argument made in the booklet you believed to be the strongest and offered the opportunity to discuss that point. You've chosen not to do so.

cysoto
07-08-2012, 10:40
You were asked which argument made in the booklet you believed to be the strongest and offered the opportunity to discuss that point. You've chosen not to do so.

Winner, winner... Chicken dinner!!

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 10:42
THis is so typical of this forum. I posted a link to a short booklet, the atheist jump into this thread and spill their beliefs and not one of them address anything brought up in the booklet.

Seriously guys why dont you just start a sub forum for non believers, so believers can discuss God without people jumping in that have NO clue whom the God family actually is.

Maybe it would be better to set up forums for believers of different beliefs, since they are not truly non-believers. They believe in stuff too.

cysoto
07-08-2012, 10:43
two shea dear doctor.

tou·ché
interj \tü-ˈshā\
used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or the success or appropriateness of an argument, an accusation, or a witty point.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 10:44
Basic logical reasoning - why would there be evidence that there is "no god" when there is no evidence that there is one (or some, depending on which of many religions you wish to prove). It's like saying "prove there are no mermaids."

"You can't disprove the existence of things for which there is no evidence of existence" is true - especially true when those things are alleged to exist outside any place where they coukld be observed. However, it is true for anything you can make up from your imagination, so it is hardly a compelling argument for god(s).


So, in the absence of an ability to prove the negative, it would require a leap of faith to ardently believe that there have been no deities. I know that many have stated only a passive lack of belief, but the arguments made seem to be a little more than that to me.

Seems to me, science has only proven that we don't know. I'm OK with that.

Bren
07-08-2012, 12:03
THis is so typical of this forum. I posted a link to a short booklet, the atheist jump into this thread and spill their beliefs and not one of them address anything brought up in the booklet.

Seriously guys why dont you just start a sub forum for non believers, so believers can discuss God without people jumping in that have NO clue whom the God family actually is.

Did you forget to read my post discussing the contents of the booklet? It was my first post in the thread.

Feel free to respond to it.

Since the thread is, literally, a discussion of the atheist point of view vs. believers, how is it that you take offense to one of those sides actually responding?

RIF

Bren
07-08-2012, 12:08
So, in the absence of an ability to prove the negative, it would require a leap of faith to ardently believe that there have been no deities. I know that many have stated only a passive lack of belief, but the arguments made seem to be a little more than that to me.

Seems to me, science has only proven that we don't know. I'm OK with that.

:rofl::rofl:

You are terrible at this. In the simplest terms I can think of, the argument is 0 evidence = 0 existence.

When normal people say anything doesn't exist, it simply means, there is "no evidence," or even "no convincing evidence," that the thing does exist. It doesn't matter whether it's bigfoot or vampires or flying spaghetti monsters, an infinite number of things could exist, if just saying they do is evidence. So, when we say santa claus and the spaghetti monster don't exist, we mean there is no evidence for them. That is normal human language and communication and it belies your argument that you have to pretend words have a different meaning in order to make your point.

You are right that science only proves we don't know the answer to many things. However, it is impossible for "Idon't know" to mean "god did it."

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 12:24
my jury is still out on the God thing.

waiting for a definitive answer.....

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 12:31
:rofl::rofl:

You are terrible at this. In the simplest terms I can think of, the argument is 0 evidence = 0 existence.

When normal people say anything doesn't exist, it simply means, there is "no evidence," or even "no convincing evidence," that the thing does exist. It doesn't matter whether it's bigfoot or vampires or flying spaghetti monsters, an infinite number of things could exist, if just saying they do is evidence. So, when we say santa claus and the spaghetti monster don't exist, we mean there is no evidence for them. That is normal human language and communication and it belies your argument that you have to pretend words have a different meaning in order to make your point.

You are right that science only proves we don't know the answer to many things. However, it is impossible for "Idon't know" to mean "god did it."

It just goes to show that the behavior I witness here, gives me the impression that there is more than just passive ignorance, and seems to be more of an active belief. But that is just my opinion, I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

If you don't like the definitions I use, you'll have to take that up with merriam-webster.

RC-RAMIE
07-08-2012, 12:37
It just goes to show that the behavior I witness here, gives me the impression that there is more than just passive ignorance, and seems to be more of an active belief. But that is just my opinion, I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

If you don't like the definitions I use, you'll have to take that up with merriam-webster.

We don't have to take up anything with Merriam-Webster, you are the one that keeps adding things to atheism that is not there. Hint there is nothing held to with adore and faith in atheism


....

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 13:06
We don't have to take up anything with Merriam-Webster, you are the one that keeps adding things to atheism that is not there. Hint there is nothing held to with adore and faith in atheism


....

Well, that's your opinion. Mine is different. I don't mind if we have different opinions.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 13:16
Well, that's your opinion. Mine is different. I don't mind if we have different opinions.

At least you admit that the whole "Atheism is a religion" argument, that you seem so intent on regurgitating at every opportunity, is based on nothing more than your opinion, misguided as it may be.:thumbsup:

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 13:22
At least you admit that the whole "Atheism is a religion" argument, that you seem so intent on regurgitating at every opportunity, is based on nothing more than your opinion, misguided as it may be.:thumbsup:

Well, that's not true. I think it is perfectly legitimate and well supported. And that it is very hard for some to admit it is a religion. Still haven't quite figured out why, but I have my suspicions.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 13:40
Well, that's not true. I think it is perfectly legitimate and well supported.

Not really. It's all about context. And the usefulness of the definition you use.



And that it is very hard for some to admit it is a religion. Still haven't quite figured out why, but I have my suspicions.

Because it's not. At least in the sense that you mean it.

The definition you used also lists hockey as a religion to Canadians.

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 13:44
if atheism is a religion than not believing in santa claus and the easter bunny is a religion.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 14:46
if atheism is a religion than not believing in santa claus and the easter bunny is a religion.

If you want them to be, that's OK with me, but in order to keep within the spirit (pardon the term) of the meaning, usually it refers to something more profound, like whether all that is, was made or just happened.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 14:48
Not really. It's all about context. And the usefulness of the definition you use.





Because it's not. At least in the sense that you mean it.

The definition you used also lists hockey as a religion to Canadians.


You have my permission to believe hockey is a religion. I think that is a little superficial, as both theism and atheism are more profound than that, and create a basis for a lot of other beliefs.

But if Hockey is also a religion, then wouldn't you believe atheism is too? What would be hard about admitting that?

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 14:57
You have my permission to believe hockey is a religion. I think that is a little superficial, as both theism and atheism are more profound than that, and create a basis for a lot of other beliefs.

But if Hockey is also a religion, then wouldn't you believe atheism is too? What would be hard about admitting that?

wouldnt atheism require a formatted practice of sorts to be a religion?

simply saying you dont believe in something unproven does not make you a religous person.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:15
wouldnt atheism require a formatted practice of sorts to be a religion?

simply saying you dont believe in something unproven does not make you a religous person.

Not necessarily, but if it did, it could be different among different groups. Some spend their time eliminating visible symbols of other religions through litigation, and some spend their time pretending to be superior intellects on internet forums. That would cover the requirement nicely.

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 15:17
Not necessarily, but if it did, it could be different among different groups. Some spend their time eliminating visible symbols of other religions through litigation, and some spend their time pretending to be superior intellects on internet forums. That would cover the requirement nicely.

i understand, and see your point completely. they are doing something religiously....

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 15:36
You have my permission to believe hockey is a religion. I think that is a little superficial, as both theism and atheism are more profound than that, and create a basis for a lot of other beliefs.

But if Hockey is also a religion, then wouldn't you believe atheism is too? What would be hard about admitting that?


Again, context.

And really, profound or superficial has nothing to do with anything.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:38
Again, context.

You are avoiding the question.

But if Hockey is also a religion, then wouldn't you believe atheism is too? What would be hard about admitting that?

Why can't you admit that atheism can be reasonably considered a religion, and move on? It won't hurt you to admit it. It changes nothing about what you choose to believe about how all this stuff got here.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 15:55
You are avoiding the question.

No I'm not. Describing hockey as a religion is a different context as describing Christianity as a religion.

Describing Atheism as a religion falls quite a bit closer to hockey than Christianity. Context and usefulness.

But if Hockey is also a religion, then wouldn't you believe atheism is too? What would be hard about admitting that?

If hockey IS a religion, than Christianity IS a sport. See why your definition is nonsense in the context your trying to use it in?

Why can't you admit that atheism can be reasonably considered a religion, and move on? It won't hurt you to admit it. It changes nothing about what you choose to believe about how all this stuff got here.

I'll admit that Atheism could be described as a religion as the same way Christianity could be described as a sport.

However, in the context of the conversations around here, neither definition is particularly useful or correct.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 15:58
No I'm not. Describing hockey as a religion is a different context as describing Christianity as a religion.

Describing Atheism as a religion falls quite a bit closer to hockey than Christianity. Context and usefulness.



If hockey IS a religion, than Christianity IS a sport. See why your definition is nonsense in the context your trying to use it in?



I'll admit that Atheism could be described as a religion as the same way Christianity could be described as a sport.

However, in the context of the conversations around here, neither definition is particularly useful or correct.

See, that's why I never agreed that hockey really fit the true meaning of the word. It's more profound than that. It is a basis for many other beliefs a person has, Hockey, not so much.

That's why atheism as a religion makes a lot of sense to me. It's not a popular observation, but it fits.

cysoto
07-08-2012, 16:00
Why can't you admit that atheism can be reasonably considered a religion, and move on? It won't hurt you to admit it. It changes nothing about what you choose to believe about how all this stuff got here.

For some reason, the above statement sounds strangely similar to Pascal's Wager.

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 16:02
See, that's why I never agreed that hockey really fit the true meaning of the word. It's more profound than that. It is a basis for many other beliefs a person has, Hockey, not so much.

That's why atheism as a religion makes a lot of sense to me. It's not a popular observation, but it fits.

atheism as a definition of simply not believing in a supreme being is not a religion. those who are atheist and who go about trying to disprove those who are not could very well be a religion.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 16:14
See, that's why I never agreed that hockey really fit the true meaning of the word. It's more profound than that. It is a basis for many other beliefs a person has, Hockey, not so much.

That's why atheism as a religion makes a lot of sense to me. It's not a popular observation, but it fits.


Hockey could be described as a religion, but it's not.

Religion could be described as a sport, but it's not.

Atheism could be described as a religion, but it's not.

A description is not a definition.

And again, profound has nothing to do with this, you're trying to mix philosophy with language.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 16:16
atheism as a definition of simply not believing in a supreme being is not a religion. those who are atheist and who go about trying to disprove those who are not could very well be a religion.

In this context Atheism could also be described as a sport, a hobby, a job, a culture or a punishment. Although it IS NOT any of those things.

Ya'll are mixing descriptions with definitions.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 16:49
For some reason, the above statement sounds strangely similar to Pascal's Wager.

Betting that there is or isn't to ensure one's place in the afterlife, or lose nothing?

Naw. I don't agree with that either. I simply choose not to choose to take an unsupported position on whether a deity exists or not. Logical tap dancing aside, there is no evidence one way or the other, so until I am convinced one way or the other, I'm just not convinced.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 16:54
Hockey could be described as a religion, but it's not.

Religion could be described as a sport, but it's not.

Atheism could be described as a religion, but it's not.

A description is not a definition.

And again, profound has nothing to do with this, you're trying to mix philosophy with language.

Hockey could be described as a religion, but that would require hyperbole. Religion could be described as a sport, but I'm not sure how you would get there, kind of like trying to describe nascar as a sport......

Atheism is a religion, plain and simple. You are welcome to disagree. It is an unsupported belief about a particular belief about the origin of the universe, one that is based on faith, and if this entire forum is considered, held to with ardor.

To me it fits. To others, it's an inconvenient way to think about things. And I can appreciate that, but that does not change the way I see atheism.

cowboywannabe
07-08-2012, 16:55
In this context Atheism could also be described as a sport, a hobby, a job, a culture or a punishment. Although it IS NOT any of those things.

Ya'll are mixing descriptions with definitions.

im not mixing anything, i never said it is or was i said it could be....

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 16:58
atheism as a definition of simply not believing in a supreme being is not a religion. those who are atheist and who go about trying to disprove those who are not could very well be a religion.

But that is not the definition, or at least not all of them.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue



It is what it is. That surprises some. Not my fault. Don't shoot the messenger.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 17:01
Hockey could be described as a religion, but that would require hyperbole. Religion could be described as a sport, but I'm not sure how you would get there, kind of like trying to describe nascar as a sport......


EXACTLY!!!!


Atheism is a religion, plain and simple. You are welcome to disagree. It is an unsupported belief about a particular belief about the origin of the universe, one that is based on faith, and if this entire forum is considered, held to with ardor.

Atheism can be described to be religion-like.

But it's still not a religion.

It is not an "unsupported belief about a particular belief about the origin of the universe, one that is based on faith, and if this entire forum is considered, held to with ardor."

It's just a rejection of an unproven assertion. It says nothing of the origins of the universe, life or anything else. Please get that.

To me it fits. To others, it's an inconvenient way to think about things. And I can appreciate that, but that does not change the way I see atheism.

It's inconvenient because its cumbersome, to broad and generalized and useless in any conversation dealing with the subject in context.

And how you see Atheism makes no difference to the reality of that statement.

Lone Wolf8634
07-08-2012, 17:03
But that is not the definition, or at least not all of them.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue



It is what it is. That surprises some. Not my fault. Don't shoot the messenger.

Rejection in the place of disbelief.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 17:06
Rejection in the place of disbelief.

That's your definition. I'm using the American English one. You can use your own, just don't claim it is the right one.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 17:09
EXACTLY!!!!




Atheism can be described to be religion-like.

But it's still not a religion.

It is not an "unsupported belief about a particular belief about the origin of the universe, one that is based on faith, and if this entire forum is considered, held to with ardor."

It's just a rejection of an unproven assertion. It says nothing of the origins of the universe, life or anything else. Please get that.



It's inconvenient because its cumbersome, to broad and generalized and useless in any conversation dealing with the subject in context.

And how you see Atheism makes no difference to the reality of that statement.

I see it that it is the reality. But I am emotionally unattached to the issue. I am an impartial witness to the beliefs between theists and atheists.

It fits literally and in the spirit of the words.

Of course we will disagree. As we have. But I'm really OK with you holding onto your biased opinion. I'm just trying to help others see it for what it really is. A metaphysical theory based on not much of anything.

Syclone538
07-08-2012, 21:34
This discussion should be in the undead false pretense thread.

Animal Mother
07-08-2012, 21:44
I see it that it is the reality. But I am emotionally unattached to the issue. This is clearly untrue, the evidence is that it is a topic you pursue with ardor and faith. Perhaps it is your religion?

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 04:23
This discussion should be in the undead false pretense thread.

It's not a false pretense, just a different perspective.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 04:24
This is clearly untrue, the evidence is that it is a topic you pursue with ardor and faith. Perhaps it is your religion?

It is a topic I find interesting.

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 06:05
It is a topic I find interesting.Most people are interested in their religion.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 06:44
Most people are interested in their religion.

Yeah, I can see that. They even have an entire forum to discuss it on a gun site, perhaps you noticed? It's also amusing that you keep trying to press a button that I don't have. Illustrative too. Projection?

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 06:55
Yeah, I can see that. They even have an entire forum to discuss it on a gun site, perhaps you noticed? It's also amusing that you keep trying to press a button that I don't have. Illustrative too. Projection?The only projection I see is your repeated attempts to assign me motives I don't hold. One would think after your repeated failures you'd move on to another tack. Perhaps your ardor prevents it?

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 06:59
The only projection I see is your repeated attempts to assign me motives I don't hold. One would think after your repeated failures you'd move on to another tack. Perhaps your ardor prevents it?

We'll have to disagree about that too I guess.

I find it hard to believe that I'm the first confident agnostic on the forum, what happened to the rest?

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 07:31
We'll have to disagree about that too I guess.

I find it hard to believe that I'm the first confident agnostic on the forum, what happened to the rest? You're not, nor are you the first person to ignore contrary evidence because it threatens the beliefs they hold with faith and ardor.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 07:45
You're not, nor are you the first person to ignore contrary evidence because it threatens the beliefs they hold with faith and ardor.

Looks like we will have to disagree about a lot, including your accusatory and frequently hostile tone.

Evidently, I'm at least as comfortable as you with my beliefs, maybe even more.

High-Gear
07-09-2012, 08:29
We'll have to disagree about that too I guess.

I find it hard to believe that I'm the first confident agnostic on the forum, what happened to the rest?

Most confident agnostics study the evidence and become atheists! :tongueout:

Seriously, I too am an agnostic, just not the 50/50 type you represent yourself as. Is it possible ere is a god? Sure? I keep waiting for someone...anyone...to produce some convincing evidence. Still nothing. This is why i live my life as if there is no god and consider myself an atheist.

OctoberRust
07-09-2012, 08:35
Well, that's your opinion. Mine is different. I don't mind if we have different opinions.

:rofl::rofl:

http://static.tumblr.com/v4vvd40/m75lmpfhe/tumblr_llgaeahjah1qiyqyfo1_500.gif


Oh I forgot to add, there is no god. :)

cysoto
07-09-2012, 08:53
I find it hard to believe that I'm the first confident agnostic on the forum, what happened to the rest?

Oh, "agnostic"... I get it now!! For a moment there I thought you had said: "antagonist". :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 09:34
Most confident agnostics study the evidence and become atheists! :tongueout:

Seriously, I too am an agnostic, just not the 50/50 type you represent yourself as. Is it possible ere is a god? Sure? I keep waiting for someone...anyone...to produce some convincing evidence. Still nothing. This is why i live my life as if there is no god and consider myself an atheist.

Or more likely, the fear of the unknown leads them to make a leap of faith, and arrive at a conclusion.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 09:35
:rofl::rofl:

http://static.tumblr.com/v4vvd40/m75lmpfhe/tumblr_llgaeahjah1qiyqyfo1_500.gif


Oh I forgot to add, there is no god. :)

I guess I should just refer you back to the pic you posted.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 09:36
Or more likely, the fear of the unknown leads them to make a leap of faith, and arrive at a conclusion.

What unknown do you think Atheist fear?

What conclusions not supported by science do you think Atheist make?

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 09:36
Oh, "agnostic"... I get it now!! For a moment there I thought you had said: "antagonist". :supergrin:

There is no need to resort to ad hominem's.

We can all be friends here.

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 09:39
What unknown do you think Atheist fear?

What conclusions not supported by science do you think Atheist make?

The belief that there is no deity. All that science has discovered does not answer the question of whether a deity or other inteligence was involved in creating what we can now see and explore, or not. It is simply an unanswered question.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 09:47
The belief that there is no deity. All that science has discovered does not answer the question of whether a deity or other inteligence was involved in creating what we can now see and explore, or not. It is simply an unanswered question.

There could be billions of ways the universe was created, as a Atheist I make no claims on knowing how the universe was created im sure I don't know and im also sure that those claiming that a God did it does not know also, they also have no evidence to support their claims and until they do I will be a atheist to their claims.

cysoto
07-09-2012, 09:51
There is no need to resort to ad hominem's.

Are you always this easily offended? :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 10:49
Are you always this easily offended? :dunno:

Not offended at all, just pointing it out. Are you always this defensive when your behavior is noted?

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 10:51
There could be billions of ways the universe was created, as a Atheist I make no claims on knowing how the universe was created im sure I don't know and im also sure that those claiming that a God did it does not know also, they also have no evidence to support their claims and until they do I will be a atheist to their claims.

Are you making any claim as to how it was not created?

High-Gear
07-09-2012, 11:29
The belief that there is no deity. All that science has discovered does not answer the question of whether a deity or other inteligence was involved in creating what we can now see and explore, or not. It is simply an unanswered question.

I couldnt care less, as I dont care if leprachauns, trolls or faries exist. I dont waste time debating because science has not disproven their existance. I live my live as an Atrollist, an Aleprachaunist, and an Afairiest. I guess according to you these are all my religions and i have to have "faith" in their nonexistance. To me they are all the same, only there is not a group trying to teach the troll version of creation in our schools (which I pay for), or forcing "In Fairies we trust" on our money, or making me say "One Nation under Leprechauns" when I say the pledge. Groups dont insist in praying to a unicorn before government meetings, nor telling me I am going to suffer eternal torture if I dont equally believe in their unicorn story!

The way religious people act, causes me to pay attention to them rather then to treat them like the aforementioned groups. No one has flown a plane into a building because they believed in Bigfoot, and no one is trying to build a weapon of Mass Destruction to kill all other non-Nessians (ie Loch Ness Monster).

This is why I speak up against religion, because people cant keep it to themselves.

cysoto
07-09-2012, 11:41
Not offended at all, just pointing it out. Are you always this defensive when your behavior is noted?
Not defensive at all; just questioning your accusatory tone. :wavey:

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 12:14
Are you making any claim as to how it was not created?

I do say that some claims don't have any evidence behind to support them. Do you consider that the same thing?

Cavalry Doc
07-09-2012, 17:11
Not defensive at all; just questioning your accusatory tone. :wavey:

It's spelled "inquisitive".

cowboywannabe
07-09-2012, 18:53
im agnostic, as in i dont believe there is a "god" as touted in the various holy books we know of, but i still hold open the possiblity that some "entity" created everything or started the wheels turning so to speak.

i see no evidence of "god" but science hasnt explained all of it either.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 19:03
im agnostic, as in i dont believe there is a "god" as touted in the various holy books we know of, but i still hold open the possiblity that some "entity" created everything or started the wheels turning so to speak.

i see no evidence of "god" but science hasnt explained all of it either.

I'm atheist and I believe the same way. I don't believe it's impossible but I don't see enough evidence to point towards one, it is one of many possibilities. That is a perfect explanation of a Agnostic-atheist.


....

High-Gear
07-09-2012, 19:04
im agnostic, as in i dont believe there is a "god" as touted in the various holy books we know of, but i still hold open the possiblity that some "entity" created everything or started the wheels turning so to speak.

i see no evidence of "god" but science hasnt explained all of it either.

Yeah, but science has explained a multitude of things, religion is batting zero.

RC-RAMIE
07-09-2012, 22:52
Yeah, but science has explained a multitude of things, religion is batting zero.

I agree completely.


....

High-Gear
07-10-2012, 04:09
Yeah, but science has explained a multitude of things, religion is batting zero.

After thinking about it, I was wrong. Religion is doing worse than batting zero, it has been horribly wrong about numerous things!

Cavalry Doc
07-10-2012, 04:18
After thinking about it, I was wrong. Religion is doing worse than batting zero, it has been horribly wrong about numerous things!

People have been wrong about things as long as there have been people.

NMG26
07-10-2012, 05:04
I see it that it is the reality. But I am emotionally unattached to the issue. I am an impartial witness to the beliefs between theists and atheists.

It fits literally and in the spirit of the words.

Of course we will disagree. As we have. But I'm really OK with you holding onto your biased opinion. I'm just trying to help others see it for what it really is. A metaphysical theory based on not much of anything.

The basis for the theory is the assertion of another theory that masquerades as fact. Is truth a metaphysical theory?

GreenDrake
07-10-2012, 05:36
I couldnt care less, as I dont care if leprachauns, trolls or faries exist. I dont waste time debating because science has not disproven their existance. I live my live as an Atrollist, an Aleprachaunist, and an Afairiest. I guess according to you these are all my religions and i have to have "faith" in their nonexistance. To me they are all the same, only there is not a group trying to teach the troll version of creation in our schools (which I pay for), or forcing "In Fairies we trust" on our money, or making me say "One Nation under Leprechauns" when I say the pledge. Groups dont insist in praying to a unicorn before government meetings, nor telling me I am going to suffer eternal torture if I dont equally believe in their unicorn story!

The way religious people act, causes me to pay attention to them rather then to treat them like the aforementioned groups. No one has flown a plane into a building because they believed in Bigfoot, and no one is trying to build a weapon of Mass Destruction to kill all other non-Nessians (ie Loch Ness Monster).

This is why I speak up against religion, because people cant keep it to themselves.

You need to do stand-up, that is hilarious. And true.

Bren
07-10-2012, 08:12
It's spelled "inquisitive".

"Inquisitive" christians are sometimes a cause for worry.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/inquisition-wheel.jpg

Bren
07-10-2012, 08:17
I couldnt care less, as I dont care if leprachauns, trolls or faries exist. I dont waste time debating because science has not disproven their existance. I live my live as an Atrollist, an Aleprachaunist, and an Afairiest. I guess according to you these are all my religions and i have to have "faith" in their nonexistance. To me they are all the same, only there is not a group trying to teach the troll version of creation in our schools (which I pay for), or forcing "In Fairies we trust" on our money, or making me say "One Nation under Leprechauns" when I say the pledge. Groups dont insist in praying to a unicorn before government meetings, nor telling me I am going to suffer eternal torture if I dont equally believe in their unicorn story!

The way religious people act, causes me to pay attention to them rather then to treat them like the aforementioned groups. No one has flown a plane into a building because they believed in Bigfoot, and no one is trying to build a weapon of Mass Destruction to kill all other non-Nessians (ie Loch Ness Monster).

This is why I speak up against religion, because people cant keep it to themselves.


Good post. Unfortunately, similar points are made time after time and the religious just ignore them. This forum is the straw man argument run rampant. The favorite straw man, is "you atheists have faith that there is no god" or "atheists claim to know for certain that there is no god." It is necessary to falsify the atheist position, since they have never had a rational response to the real one.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 08:27
Good post. Unfortunately, similar points are made time after time and the religious just ignore them. This forum is the straw man argument run rampant. The favorite straw man, is "you atheists have faith that there is no god" or "atheists claim to know for certain that there is no god." It is necessary to falsify the atheist position, since they have never had a rational response to the real one.

Judging motives is always risky. Atheists may have motives such as fear, rebelliousness, or a desire not to be responsible to a higher being. There may also be honest doubt, but that person is not looking very hard or feeling a need for God in our information age.

scccdoc
07-10-2012, 08:39
How many "dead horses" are beaten per week around here? Has anyone on GT ever changed their point of view?DOC

Syclone538
07-10-2012, 09:32
Judging motives is always risky.
...

Even when people flat out tell you their motive is to get to the truth?

...
Atheists may have motives such as fear,
...

Fear of what? Do you fear things that you've seen no evidence for their existence? Do you fear all the gods that have been invented besides yours?

...
rebelliousness,
...

Rebelliousness against what? Do you rebel against things you've seen no evidence for their existence? Do you rebel against all the gods that have been invented besides yours?

...
or a desire not to be responsible to a higher being.
...

Desire has no effect on what is true.

...
There may also be honest doubt,
...

There may also be honest doubt??? Really???

...
but that person is not looking very hard
...

Where should we look?

...
or feeling a need for God
...

Even if we did, which I don't understand, that wouldn't have any effect on what is true either, so it's irrelevant.

...
in our information age.

I don't know what this has to do with anything.

cysoto
07-10-2012, 09:59
Has anyone on GT ever changed their point of view?
I am willing to bet a penny that most atheist who post on this forum were born and raised in a Christian household so, yes, some people do change their points of view.

NMG26
07-10-2012, 10:14
Judging motives is always risky. Atheists may have motives such as fear, rebelliousness, or a desire not to be responsible to a higher being. There may also be honest doubt, but that person is not looking very hard or feeling a need for God in our information age.

How does the information age prove there is a God?

I think it more shows that we are God.

Nothing gets done without mankind doing it. God has nothing to do with any of it.

As for fear and rebellion, we tend to rebel against the tyranny of ideas that would enslave and stifle our own pursuit of happiness.

If God is in charge, then those who say that they have God's word get to keep their agenda at the top of everything.

The information age lets us see the folly of the religious cult mind, more and more, blatant, and daily.

God is not stepping in.

Be the best man you can be, and you will be doing fine.

scccdoc
07-10-2012, 10:50
I am willing to bet a penny that most atheist who post on this forum were born and raised in a Christian household so, yes, some people do change their points of view.

......................... as a result of these threads

juggy4711
07-10-2012, 17:22
How does the information age prove there is a God?

I think it more shows that we are God.

Nothing gets done without mankind doing it. God has nothing to do with any of it.

As for fear and rebellion, we tend to rebel against the tyranny of ideas that would enslave and stifle our own pursuit of happiness.

If God is in charge, then those who say that they have God's word get to keep their agenda at the top of everything.

The information age lets us see the folly of the religious cult mind, more and more, blatant, and daily.

God is not stepping in.

Be the best man you can be, and you will be doing fine.

+1 Amen

muscogee
07-10-2012, 23:37
Gee Bren...you are smarter than 99% of all human beings. Perhaps you can explain to me how life came from non-life; how organic material came about on an inorganic planet.

Please Bren! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze! :upeyes:

Why do you assume people unable to understand the difference between fact and fiction could understand or believe the explanation?

muscogee
07-10-2012, 23:43
There is lots of evidence of self congratulatory arrogance in this forum, but I seem to see more of that from the other side of the coin. Even to the point of hostility when it's pointed out that they too have made a choice in what to believe, without evidence to support that choice.

I think the hostility is toward pig headed ignorance more than anything else. "Is not, and "Is too" are unsubstantiated opinions, not arguments.

Tilley
07-10-2012, 23:48
Why do you assume people unable to understand the difference between fact and fiction could understand or believe the explanation?

There is no answer bro...you already know that.


So when are you inviting me over for that beer and discuss your eternal soul?

muscogee
07-11-2012, 00:00
So, in the absence of an ability to prove the negative, it would require a leap of faith to ardently believe that there have been no deities.

That's a logical fallacy. As has been explained here many times, something which cannot be proven false is not necessary true. Logically, something is considered false until it can be shown to be more true than false.

As I explained before, researchers seldom talk in terms of absolute truth. They try to determine the probability that something is not false. If something is probably not false, then it is assumed to be probably true. That goes over the heads of literal two dimensional thinkers who can't tolerate ambiguity.

muscogee
07-11-2012, 00:12
im agnostic, as in i dont believe there is a "god" as touted in the various holy books we know of, but i still hold open the possiblity that some "entity" created everything or started the wheels turning so to speak.

i see no evidence of "god" but science hasnt explained all of it either.

Neither has religion, but science is way ahead and getting further ahead every day.

muscogee
07-11-2012, 00:18
There is no answer bro...you already know that.


So when are you inviting me over for that beer and discuss your eternal soul?

When someone presents sound logic based evidence that I have one.

cowboywannabe
07-11-2012, 00:40
Neither has religion, but science is way ahead and getting further ahead every day.

neither has science.

while some rely on the hope that there is something for them after they die, faith in a God of whatever flavor if you will; some follow the proven facts of science which still leaves a whole lot unanswered, neither can be said to be definitive if you use logic and reason. however, logic and reason are not welcome in the house of the "Lord", so those practicioners must follow science because its the only "theory" that allows the possibility of a difinitive answer.

if we just accepted that "God" was the answer and salvation of our souls and all that jazz we would still be in the stone age like the american indians were and the africans were when Europeans found them.

Its odd because with all the religious rules, and denial of things proven by science in Europe, it was the European's desire to not "just accept" God's will, they went to see whats on the other side, how to cure this, how to heal that, how to treat this and how to inoculate against that.

there are so many unanswered question as a result of religion, and its followers will say the answer is there, usually with some riddle or open ended story or a phase that you must simple take on faith. science doesnt take a bullcrap sandwhich in faith and eat it because its said to taste good. science will at least try to find the damn ketchup.

nmk
07-11-2012, 10:10
I couldnt care less, as I dont care if leprachauns, trolls or faries exist. I dont waste time debating because science has not disproven their existance. I live my live as an Atrollist, an Aleprachaunist, and an Afairiest. I guess according to you these are all my religions and i have to have "faith" in their nonexistance. To me they are all the same, only there is not a group trying to teach the troll version of creation in our schools (which I pay for), or forcing "In Fairies we trust" on our money, or making me say "One Nation under Leprechauns" when I say the pledge. Groups dont insist in praying to a unicorn before government meetings, nor telling me I am going to suffer eternal torture if I dont equally believe in their unicorn story!

The way religious people act, causes me to pay attention to them rather then to treat them like the aforementioned groups. No one has flown a plane into a building because they believed in Bigfoot, and no one is trying to build a weapon of Mass Destruction to kill all other non-Nessians (ie Loch Ness Monster).

This is why I speak up against religion, because people cant keep it to themselves.

I'd be interested in the response to this.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 10:42
"Inquisitive" christians are sometimes a cause for worry.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/inquisition-wheel.jpg

Any problems with inquisitive agnostics??

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 10:47
The basis for the theory is the assertion of another theory that masquerades as fact. Is truth a metaphysical theory?

Why not just accept it is currently an unknown? People make choices on what to believe frequently. No reason not to allow them to have that belief, maybe even to the point of being respectful about it, as long as their beliefs don't directly interfere with anyone else's freedoms, like blue laws, which should probably go away.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 10:52
I think the hostility is toward pig headed ignorance more than anything else. "Is not, and "Is too" are unsubstantiated opinions, not arguments.

The problem there is that we all are truly ignorant, some admit it, some won't, and some can't.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 10:55
The basis for the theory is the assertion of another theory that masquerades as fact. Is truth a metaphysical theory?

Truth is what it is. There are theories and claims of what people believe is the truth. Fact is, some of them are mutually exclusive.

muscogee
07-11-2012, 11:16
The problem there is that we all are truly ignorant, some admit it, some won't, and some can't.

You left out the qualifier. Look up "pigheaded". We're not all pigheaded about our ignorance. That makes us less ignorant than those who are. You're pig headed about the, "atheism is a religion" BS.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 11:55
You left out the qualifier. Look up "pigheaded". We're not all pigheaded about our ignorance. That makes us less ignorant than those who are. You're pig headed about the, "atheism is a religion" BS.

Guess we all have our opinions. I see a lot of pigheadedness from atheists too. A lot of ad Homs and intolerance of other beliefs too. Some of you can't help it, and although you were mistreated as a child, consider for a moment that wasn't me mistreating you.

Guess we'll just have to learn to live with it.

muscogee
07-11-2012, 16:22
You opened a thread on "atheism is a religion" a very long time ago and you keep resurrecting it. Apparently you don't think you're getting enough attention because you constantly hijack threads and attempt to preempt every discussion but the one with which you're obsessed. Why are you obsessed with pushing this?

NMG26
07-11-2012, 17:48
Why not just accept it is currently an unknown? People make choices on what to believe frequently. No reason not to allow them to have that belief, maybe even to the point of being respectful about it, as long as their beliefs don't directly interfere with anyone else's freedoms, like blue laws, which should probably go away.


Is good with me.

Interesting how important presidential canidates religion is.
No president thus far has been an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist), a Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism), a Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist), a Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam), a Hindu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu), a Sikh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh) or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion.

You must embrace a metaphysical theory in order to achieve the highest office in the land.

Syclone538
07-11-2012, 21:04
Guess we all have our opinions. I see a lot of pigheadedness from atheists too. A lot of ad Homs and intolerance of other beliefs too. Some of you can't help it, and although you were mistreated as a child, consider for a moment that wasn't me mistreating you.

Guess we'll just have to learn to live with it.

Who is this directed to?

NMG26
07-11-2012, 21:17
Who is this directed to?

Maybe we we have all been mistreated by religion.

Can't blame that on CD.

G26S239
07-12-2012, 00:01
Or more likely, the fear of the unknown leads them to make a leap of faith, and arrive at a conclusion.

What unknown do you think Atheist fear?

What conclusions not supported by science do you think Atheist make?

The belief that there is no deity. All that science has discovered does not answer the question of whether a deity or other inteligence was involved in creating what we can now see and explore, or not. It is simply an unanswered question.
Wrong. It is a question that has been asked and answered at least a few thousand times by a few thousand different groups of people. The answers are creation myths. Those who are comfortable relying on unsupported anecdotes that are claimed to be holy can, and often do, choose to put their faith in stories that have no empirical support. I do not believe for one minute that the North Island of New Zealand was formed from a huge fish that Maui caught. My lack of belief in this creation myth has nothing to do with fear of Maui. It has everything to do with the myth sounding like old school superstitious bs.

The Enumu Elish is an entertaining read and sounds like bs to me.
The Hindu creation myth starring Vishnu is interesting but again ends up sounding like bs to me.
The ever popular Yahweh myth that has light and dark separated, the earth made, all plants and animals made and finally people in a 6 day span sounds like bs to me.

My lack of belief in Yahweh, Tiamet, Mazda Ahura, Maui et al has not resulted in a panicky fear state that forced me into non belief. The non belief was there in the first place and I do not suffer from Nogodaphobia.

I am not going to bother pretending that it is just as reasonable to believe the possibility that Maui actually did pull a fish out of the sea to make the North Island as it is reasonable to disbelieve it. It just flat out makes more sense to me to discard the veracity of that story than it does to believe that the North Island used to be a gigantic fish ~ 26.8% the size of California. If you can make a case that believing the Maui story is just as reasonable as disbelieving it I would like you to do so.

G26S239
07-12-2012, 00:43
The belief that there is no deity. All that science has discovered does not answer the question of whether a deity or other inteligence was involved in creating what we can now see and explore, or not. It is simply an unanswered question.
Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion and having repeatable results.

As for science getting involved in questions about creator(s), what observations, if any, do you believe that scientists could make or should make that would then lead to a reasoned hypothesis that an intelligent creator may exist?

What experiment(s), if any, would you suggest devising that would lure Yahweh, Odin, Kali, Maui, Mazda Ahura or some other god/creator into revealing themselves?

I am asking because you appear to be trying to throw the ball in the court of science as if science has somehow been slacking off in not seriously studying the possible existence of a creator. If that is what you are doing than how about providing some suggestions as to how this might be done? Keep in mind that for all their alleged omniscient and omnipotent nature these supernatural critters seem to be real bashful about appearing in public.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 05:51
You opened a thread on "atheism is a religion" a very long time ago and you keep resurrecting it. Apparently you don't think you're getting enough attention because you constantly hijack threads and attempt to preempt every discussion but the one with which you're obsessed. Why are you obsessed with pushing this?

Hijack? I'm finding it interesting to discuss religion. There is a forum to discuss these issues, and I participate. I'm tolerant if the beliefs of others, even if I don't personally agree.

It seems that you are making rules up for me that don't apply to you. You are allowed to state why you don't agree with christianity, bhuddism and FSM. It is a place to debate and make people think, I'm just voicing my perspective. At the foundation of that perspective is that there really is no tangible and convincing evidence about how the universe started to become as it is now. Lots of theories, beliefs, and use of other knowledge to claim it supports unfounded belief, but no evidence. It's interesting to see how believers justify their positions. If the agnostic position makes you uncomfortable, you don't have to read my posts or respond to them. The ad hom's are unnecessary. I'm just a guy on the Internet, that disagrees with you on a few details, that's all.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 05:54
Is good with me.

Interesting how important presidential canidates religion is.
No president thus far has been an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist), a Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism), a Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist), a Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam), a Hindu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu), a Sikh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh) or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion.

You must embrace a metaphysical theory in order to achieve the highest office in the land.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 05:56
Who is this directed to?

The person I was responding to, specifically.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 06:04
Wrong. It is a question that has been asked and answered at least a few thousand times by a few thousand different groups of people. The answers are creation myths. Those who are comfortable relying on unsupported anecdotes that are claimed to be holy can, and often do, choose to put their faith in stories that have no empirical support. I do not believe for one minute that the North Island of New Zealand was formed from a huge fish that Maui caught. My lack of belief in this creation myth has nothing to do with fear of Maui. It has everything to do with the myth sounding like old school superstitious bs.

The Enumu Elish is an entertaining read and sounds like bs to me.
The Hindu creation myth starring Vishnu is interesting but again ends up sounding like bs to me.
The ever popular Yahweh myth that has light and dark separated, the earth made, all plants and animals made and finally people in a 6 day span sounds like bs to me.

My lack of belief in Yahweh, Tiamet, Mazda Ahura, Maui et al has not resulted in a panicky fear state that forced me into non belief. The non belief was there in the first place and I do not suffer from Nogodaphobia.

I am not going to bother pretending that it is just as reasonable to believe the possibility that Maui actually did pull a fish out of the sea to make the North Island as it is reasonable to disbelieve it. It just flat out makes more sense to me to discard the veracity of that story than it does to believe that the North Island used to be a gigantic fish ~ 26.8% the size of California. If you can make a case that believing the Maui story is just as reasonable as disbelieving it I would like you to do so.


As long as these beliefs do you no harm, who cares. Things like blue laws and others are legitimately opposable. But people should have the freedom to believe in any way they feel comfortable. I find it very UN-American to not be tolerant of beliefs. Some of the more radical believers want to remove all symbols of other people's beliefs, and I find that abhorrent. Islamists are actually talking about removing the pyramids. I don't have to worship ancient Egyptian gods to be offended by that intolerance. Which isn't much different than having a veterans memorial removed from public land. It's just so impolite.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 06:15
Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion and having repeatable results.

As for science getting involved in questions about creator(s), what observations, if any, do you believe that scientists could make or should make that would then lead to a reasoned hypothesis that an intelligent creator may exist?

What experiment(s), if any, would you suggest devising that would lure Yahweh, Odin, Kali, Maui, Mazda Ahura or some other god/creator into revealing themselves?

I am asking because you appear to be trying to throw the ball in the court of science as if science has somehow been slacking off in not seriously studying the possible existence of a creator. If that is what you are doing than how about providing some suggestions as to how this might be done? Keep in mind that for all their alleged omniscient and omnipotent nature these supernatural critters seem to be real bashful about appearing in public.


What experiment? Heck if I know. The scientific method is a good method, but it imperfect. It cannot answer everything, especially if there is no evidence to examine. Sure, people measure electromagnet radiation to get a feeling about what directions the stars are moving in, and which direction they may have come from, but what does that tell you about the beginning? Did someone or something light the fuse on the big bang? I do not know. And I'm ok with that.

Just one point, I keep seeing that term pop up. IF a deity it deities created the universe, that would be the nature of things, an therefore completely natural. Science has been very helpful, but it's practiced by people. Cold fusion, MMGW, cloning, all have had less that honest people put out bad information. It happens.

My approach has been that since science has no answer on a specific question, I will endeavor to not make up conclusions based on insufficient data.

G26S239
07-12-2012, 06:50
As long as these beliefs do you no harm, who cares. Things like blue laws and others are legitimately opposable. But people should have the freedom to believe in any way they feel comfortable. I find it very UN-American to not be tolerant of beliefs. Some of the more radical believers want to remove all symbols of other people's beliefs, and I find that abhorrent. Islamists are actually talking about removing the pyramids. I don't have to worship ancient Egyptian gods to be offended by that intolerance. Which isn't much different than having a veterans memorial removed from public land. It's just so impolite.
You put forth the opinion that atheism is likely fear driven. I responded to that baseless accusation by using a particular creation mythology to illustrate why I do not tend to rely on ancient superstitions to explain how the earth came to be and why fear is not necessary for me to disbelieve that the North Island of NZ started out as a gigantic fish.

At no point in that post or any other post did I advocate for the removal of that cross on the mountain in San Diego or suggest trampling on anyone's freedom to worship Yahweh, Mazda Ahura or the FSM. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that the quoted post above is responsive to what I addressed to you.

As for not being tolerant of others being un American I disagree. I have a great aunt who was hanged as a witch at Salemtown before the USA was formed. The President of this country attended Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years and the KKK, Nation Of Islam, Know Nothing Party and various other intolerant entities were created right here in the USA by Americans.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 07:05
You put forth the opinion that atheism is likely fear driven. I responded to that baseless accusation by using a particular creation mythology to illustrate why I do not tend to rely on ancient superstitions to explain how the earth came to be and why fear is not necessary for me to disbelieve that the North Island of NZ started out as a gigantic fish.

At no point in that post or any other post did I advocate for the removal of that cross on the mountain in San Diego or suggest trampling on anyone's freedom to worship Yahweh, Mazda Ahura or the FSM. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that the quoted post above is responsive to what I addressed to you.

As for not being tolerant of others being un American I disagree. I have a great aunt who was hanged as a witch at Salemtown before the USA was formed. The President of this country attended Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years and the KKK, Nation Of Islam, Know Nothing Party and various other intolerant entities were created right here in the USA by Americans.

I guess to be fair, fear is one of many possible paths people take to land at unsupported conclusions. Arrogance, narcissism, pride and many more are possible.

Humans are intolerant. The Constitution attempts to fix that human flaw. Sorry about your great aunt. That's one of several million injustices humans have produced. Glad to hear you don't want to remove historical artifacts, that was not meant to be directed at you personally.

scccdoc
07-12-2012, 07:09
Calvary Doc, keep up the good fight, I admire your faith. The "gang", like wolves, circle and attack from all angles often with questions not pertaining to the subject :yawn:. It's their MO...................DOC

cysoto
07-12-2012, 07:19
No president thus far has been... a Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)...

There are some who would disagree with this statement... :whistling:

G26S239
07-12-2012, 07:21
What experiment? Heck if I know. The scientific method is a good method, but it imperfect. It cannot answer everything, especially if there is no evidence to examine. Sure, people measure electromagnet radiation to get a feeling about what directions the stars are moving in, and which direction they may have come from, but what does that tell you about the beginning? Did someone or something light the fuse on the big bang? I do not know. And I'm ok with that.
I put the if any qualifiers in my post because I was not sure if you were suggesting what I inferred from your post. And I agree there is no evidence supporting that Yahweh or any other gods exist. That is why it gets the same credence from me as leprechauns, tooth fairies and winged horses do.

Just one point, I keep seeing that term pop up. IF a deity it deities created the universe, that would be the nature of things, an therefore completely natural. Science has been very helpful, but it's practiced by people. Cold fusion, MMGW, cloning, all have had less that honest people put out bad information. It happens.
I agree that research with an agenda to get the results desired is not good. Fortunately science does tend to correct itself over time as happened with Piltdown Man.

My approach has been that since science has no answer on a specific question, I will endeavor to not make up conclusions based on insufficient data.
For me, being able to take key components of a belief system apart i.e. Yahweh manufactured and populated the earth in 6 days or Maui pulled a giant fish out of the sea and made the beautiful island of Aotearoa will automatically predispose me to doubt the veracity of any other fables from that same source.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 07:26
Calvary Doc, keep up the good fight, I admire your faith. The "gang", like wolves, circle and attack from all angles often with questions not pertaining to the subject :yawn:. It's their MO...................DOC

Thanks for the support, but be advised, I am not taking sides in the "god or no god" question. It is an interesting discussion though.

scccdoc
07-12-2012, 07:42
Thanks for the support, but be advised, I am not taking sides in the "god or no god" question. It is an interesting discussion though.

But they are..................

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 07:48
But they are..................

Some find it discomforting to examine the basis for their beliefs. It's not a bad thing to have faith, but one should recognize it as such, if it is indeed faith. Seems to me that any answer to this question the OP asks, where the person answering is sure one way or the other, that REQUIRES faith.

G26S239
07-12-2012, 07:57
I guess to be fair, fear is one of many possible paths people take to land at unsupported conclusions. Arrogance, narcissism, pride and many more are possible. And using the words arrogance, narcissism and pride in that ^^^ manner does appear to me to be deliberately leaving the implication hanging that atheism is inherently agenda driven rather than possibly being a logically considered position arrived through observing no positive or realistic evidence in support of magical friends.

If I stated that the earth has one moon rather than two would you consider that to be an unsupported conclusion as well? From my perspective it is a similar disbelief. One major difference being that the Yahweh/Vishnu/Boogieman in the sky is an archetype that has been around probably since people could articulate such thoughts to make them feel safer against cave bears, lightning etc in paleolithic times.

Humans are intolerant. The Constitution attempts to fix that human flaw. Sorry about your great aunt. That's one of several million injustices humans have produced. Glad to hear you don't want to remove historical artifacts, that was not meant to be directed at you personally.
I did not take it personal.

And on that note I am done with this thread for now. I may come back later to discuss more with you. Have fun. :wavey:

G26S239
07-12-2012, 08:04
Who is this directed to?

Maybe we we have all been mistreated by religion.

Can't blame that on CD.

muscogee has posted about a horribly abused child, I believe that is what CD was referring to.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 08:15
And using the words arrogance, narcissism and pride in that ^^^ manner does appear to me to be deliberately leaving the implication hanging that atheism is inherently agenda driven rather than possibly being a logically considered position arrived through observing no positive or realistic evidence in support of magical friends.

If I stated that the earth has one moon rather than two would you consider that to be an unsupported conclusion as well? From my perspective it is a similar disbelief. One major difference being that the Yahweh/Vishnu/Boogieman in the sky is an archetype that has been around probably since people could articulate such thoughts to make them feel safer against cave bears, lightning etc in paleolithic times.

I did not take it personal.

And on that note I am done with this thread for now. I may come back later to discuss more with you. Have fun. :wavey:


All of those emotions, including my initial supposition of a simple fear of the unknown applies to all faiths, theist and atheist.


We can see the moon on many nights, and there is only one as far as I can tell. We have sensitive optical and radar sensors that should have been able to find another. We've even sent people there. That's the difference between tangible and imagined evidence. There is no sensor capable of recording an event billions of years ago, with HD resolution.

scccdoc
07-12-2012, 10:36
Some find it discomforting to examine the basis for their beliefs. It's not a bad thing to have faith, but one should recognize it as such, if it is indeed faith. Seems to me that any answer to this question the OP asks, where the person answering is sure one way or the other, that REQUIRES faith.

I speak for myself and I believe for many who BELIEVE in God (in my case Jesus, also). I have experienced a higher power in my life, it's not a "discomfort" but difficult to explain, especially to those who refuse to believe. It is much easier to live "in" the world. I choose to follow that "higher power" who has shown himself over and over................. DOC

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 10:46
I speak for myself and I believe for many who BELIEVE in God (in my case Jesus, also). I have experienced a higher power in my life, it's not a "discomfort" but difficult to explain, especially to those who refuse to believe. It is much easier to live "in" the world. I choose to follow that "higher power" who has shown himself over and over................. DOC

And when someone is comfortable and happy in their belief, I'm cool with that too.

scccdoc
07-12-2012, 10:50
And when someone is comfortable and happy in their belief, I'm cool with that too.

Yes, that's my feeling as well. Listen if you want, or don't..................... DOC

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 11:24
Yes, that's my feeling as well. Listen if you want, or don't..................... DOC

If you were truly comfortabe with others believing as they wish, why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs Why can't you be content to keep them to yourself?

I speak up only because people push their myths into public discourse, sometimes murderously so.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 12:20
If you were truly comfortabe with others believing as they wish, why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs Why can't you be content to keep them to yourself?

I speak up only because people push their myths into public discourse, sometimes murderously so.

It's one thing to make your beliefs and foundations for those beliefs known, and another to demand that others listen and agree. Kind of like the Jehovah's witnesses that won't get off the porch. This is a forum, with voluntary participation. No one is forced to read and/or respond to posts here. Just in this thread alone, several different belief systems are discussed, supported and rebutted here. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

scccdoc
07-12-2012, 12:24
If you were truly comfortabe with others believing as they wish, why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs Why can't you be content to keep them to yourself?

I speak up only because people push their myths into public discourse, sometimes murderously so.


First of all, I've said that before. Secondly, I've learned not to evangelize to those whose insult me as spreading 'myths". I learned that on this board. BTW, could your belief not be considered a "myth" to a believer?

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 12:55
First of all, I've said that before. Secondly, I've learned not to evangelize to those whose insult me as spreading 'myths". I learned that on this board. BTW, could your belief not be considered a "myth" to a believer?

First, I did not insult you. The first statement was a question to you, the second was a general statement, thus why they were seperated.

The first question was not meant strictly on this forum, but rather in general. Why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs "evangelize" if you are content in allowing others to believe as they wish? I answered by saying I speak up because others force their myths into public discourse, sometimes at the cost of other's lives. Apparently you were so ready to be offended you missed that point.

And to your last question, the answer is no.

Definition of myth
noun
1a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events:
ancient Celtic myths
[mass noun]:
the heroes of Greek myth
2a widely held but false belief or idea:
the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists
a fictitious or imaginary person or thing:
nobody had ever heard of Simon’s mysterious friend—Anna said he was a myth
an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing:
the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 13:06
It's one thing to make your beliefs and foundations for those beliefs known, and another to demand that others listen and agree. Kind of like the Jehovah's witnesses that won't get off the porch. This is a forum, with voluntary participation. No one is forced to read and/or respond to posts here. Just in this thread alone, several different belief systems are discussed, supported and rebutted here. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

I was not referring to discussions on forums, I was referring to flying planes into buildings, beheadings, and such.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 13:08
Seems to me that both theists and atheists prosthelytize quite frequently.

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 13:26
Asking for evidence is not prosthelytizing.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 13:47
Asking for evidence is not prosthelytizing.

Telling the other side that all the evidence says only you are possibly right, is. Some are quite vigorous about it too.

nmk
07-12-2012, 13:51
Good post. Unfortunately, similar points are made time after time and the religious just ignore them. This forum is the straw man argument run rampant. The favorite straw man, is "you atheists have faith that there is no god" or "atheists claim to know for certain that there is no god." It is necessary to falsify the atheist position, since they have never had a rational response to the real one.

Looks like you were right.

scccdoc
07-12-2012, 13:53
First, I did not insult you. The first statement was a question to you, the second was a general statement, thus why they were seperated.

The first question was not meant strictly on this forum, but rather in general. Why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs "evangelize" if you are content in allowing others to believe as they wish?


And to your last question, the answer is no.

Definition of myth
noun
1a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events:
ancient Celtic myths
[mass noun]:
the heroes of Greek myth
2a widely held but false belief or idea:
the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists
a fictitious or imaginary person or thing:
nobody had ever heard of Simon’s mysterious friend—Anna said he was a myth
an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing:
the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth

1)If you call God a myth, you insult me.
2)Acts 1:8, I will witness but "take the dust off my sandals" (paraphrase) to those whose refuse to listen.
or mock those who believe.
3)Instead of "myth", how about "false" or "fantasy" that you are the most superior being? But you knew what I was saying...................

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 15:15
1)If you call God a myth, you insult me.
2)Acts 1:8, I will witness but "take the dust off my sandals" (paraphrase) to those whose refuse to listen.
or mock those who believe.
3)Instead of "myth", how about "false" or "fantasy" that you are the most superior being? But you knew what I was saying...................

Pretend for a moment you are not the only person in the room. I said I directed that comment to those whould would kill to ensure their god was supreme. Would you call zeus, wotan, apollo, set, or thor a myth? Or would you shrink from that for fear of offending those who have or do believe them to be real?

Quite frankly I dont care if you are offended because I do not believe in your god. That was not my goal, and I was not being offensive. If you are so thin skinned to be offended because someone called various religions "myths" because yours might be included, so be it. I bet you dont have a problem saying muslims worship a false god? Or maybe when a group of muslims burn an embasy, or murder a newspaper editor over some cartoons, you think they are justified?

scccdoc
07-13-2012, 09:58
Pretend for a moment you are not the only person in the room. I said I directed that comment to those whould would kill to ensure their god was supreme. Would you call zeus, wotan, apollo, set, or thor a myth? Or would you shrink from that for fear of offending those who have or do believe them to be real?

Quite frankly I dont care if you are offended because I do not believe in your god. That was not my goal, and I was not being offensive. If you are so thin skinned to be offended because someone called various religions "myths" because yours might be included, so be it. I bet you dont have a problem saying muslims worship a false god? Or maybe when a group of muslims burn an embasy, or murder a newspaper editor over some cartoons, you think they are justified?

You miss the point and lack knowledge of my faith. I answered your questions truthfully so you would understand. Projecting what I would do is a waste of your time.

High-Gear
07-14-2012, 07:30
You miss the point and lack knowledge of my faith.

If I missed the point, you did not articulate it well, please explain again.
I answered your questions truthfully so you would understand.
I dont think you answered my question at all, you simply raised the "offended" flag.
Projecting what I would do is a waste of your time.
I was not projecting, but asking more questions which you refuse to answer.

scccdoc
07-16-2012, 08:07
If I missed the point, you did not articulate it well, please explain again.

I dont think you answered my question at all, you simply raised the "offended" flag.

I was not projecting, but asking more questions which you refuse to answer.

Originally Posted by scccdoc http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19189174#post19189174)
1)If you call God a myth, you insult me. It's called 'righteous anger'
2)Acts 1:8,Apparently you didn't look it up, so here, Acts 1:8 (New International Version 1984)




Acts 1:8

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

<sup class="versenum">8 </sup>But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
If anyone does not believe
or mock those who believe.Matthew 10:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10:14&version=NIV1984)
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town
3)Instead of "myth", how about "false" or "fantasy" that you are the most superior being? But you knew what I was saying..................."



You're dancing, partner. Your questions have been answered, try to understand......................instead ,you just argue or refuse to understand a different point of view.

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 11:03
Originally Posted by scccdoc http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19189174#post19189174)
1)If you call God a myth, you insult me. It's called 'righteous anger'
2)Acts 1:8,Apparently you didn't look it up, so here, Acts 1:8 (New International Version 1984)




Acts 1:8

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

<sup class="versenum">8 </sup>But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
If anyone does not believe
or mock those who believe.Matthew 10:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10:14&version=NIV1984)
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town
3)Instead of "myth", how about "false" or "fantasy" that you are the most superior being? But you knew what I was saying..................."



You're dancing, partner. Your questions have been answered, try to understand......................instead ,you just argue or refuse to understand a different point of view.

So you're not content to let people believe as they wish, at least till you've evangelized to them, then they can take it or leave it?

scccdoc
07-16-2012, 11:53
So you're not content to let people believe as they wish, at least till you've evangelized to them, then they can take it or leave it?

Most if not all non-believers here KNOW that I support your right to believe as you wish. I responded to your questions about my personal belief.