Why do you believe that there is a god?

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by sillyputty

As someone said before. Science doesn't claim truth. If a claim is suggested and supported with evidence and tested consistently and it still holds up then it has merit. If it fails to support the claims that evidence suggest then it is dispelled.


I've used this example before but look at the difference between newtonian and einsteins physics. Newton was right...up to a certain point. Einstein just made a better and more accurate system that had more evidence behind it so its supported more than newtons conclusions. It didn't disprove newton, it simply said einstein was MORE right. Thats the point. 

The same thing happens with religion at large.

Let me ask you this?....

Has there not been countless revisions of religion?

Protestantism evolved as a debate about the beliefs, procedures and ideologies of Early Orthodox Catholicism. 

There are hundreds of sects of any particular religion, hundreds of which place heavy belief of modern science but see existence in a more nuanced manner, very similar to that of the developing fields of quantum science.

But like I said, you are as much of a zealot as those you look down on, which blinds you from seeing the infinite gray area in which most human concepts dwell.

Religion is invalidated because of their countless revisions. If the claims on which they are based are ABSOLUTE as they claim to be then when they attempt to interpret their ABSOLUTE findings in a different way then they are in fact not absolute. 
Science doesn't claim to be absolute. It can only define things to a certain degree of reliability. Your measurements will never be completely accurate, your findings will never be able to model reality perfectly. Thats why it tries to refine things to as best of its ability as it can.

What if we stopped at optical microscopes. How would be able to now see that DNA IS a double helix or how various diseases and viruses look with electron or scanning microscopes? 

Science knows its limits and attemps to push them even farther.

Religion sets its limits but is forced to change them when society moves on beyond them. There is a reason Amish people aren't predominating christianity. Modern chrisians wouldn't dare live life like them but have moved on only picking and choosing what they want to support so as to let them cling to their old beliefs while benefiting from newer and updated theology while claiming it to be absolute. That is why religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

Science acknowledges its faults and moves on to being improved. It allots for the evolution of its methods. Religion does not yet it does so under the guise of moderates who pick and choose what suits them and yet illogically claim absolute authority. 

That is where your argument fails. 

I see what you're trying to do. You're saying that if I can subscribe to testing claims and verfiying them then i'm basically in a "group"...you want to categorize me. 

You have to step outside of that need to group everything and try to assert things that consistently and for all intents and purposes reliable to particularly comfortable levels of scrutiny. 

You are challenging the epistemological restraints of science...which is cool. You're asking how can we ever really know ANYTHING...and who knows, probably we can't.

 But if we can assert things and back them up to reliable degrees that stand until they are challenged by things supported with even better evidence then how can we begin to move forward to solidifying our finality of knowledge? 

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by sillyputty



Yes, you are right to an EXTENT. 

I will give you credit for that. In each community, even in science there are certain defining characteristics and methods of interaction that prevail over others.

Boom, stop there. Thats point of debate #1. Science has a culture.

If you want to call it a culture, fine do so.

I will. Anyone else who wishes to be on the side of scholarship and truth should do the same.

Granted, the scientific community that investigates claims tries to be as impartial as possible so as to determine whether or not claims can be verified. You may assert that objectivity and the pursuit of it is a "culture" but you have to see that this same community changes its rules all the time. It tries to get BETTER. It is scientific about being scientific. Thats the thing. It is critical of even the practices that IT uses. Thats why research institutions have review boards and other certification entities meet constantly to develop new and more refined ways of allowing data to be analyzed.
ALL COMMUNITIES CHANGE THEIR RULES OVER TIME. It seems that the basic understanding of human society is lost on too many left brained Western Scientific zealots.

But how does that invalidate the claims suggested as a whole at their forefront. If you disagree, propose an alternative method through which we can validate claims. If your suggestion works better and there is more evidence to support it, then TRUST ME, everyone will adopt your method.
People want to progress and use the best possible tool through which they can understand the world. As it stands, this is the best way to do so...its not the ABSOLUTE way to do so. Until another way comes along, and it may, then this is the best tool we currently have. Not the ONLY tool. 

Do you see what i'm saying? 


I haven't shot down any scientific theories of the system itself, that would be foolish. What is equally foolish is disregarding the esoteric "right-brained" analysis of life, which is essential for an optimal and holistic understanding of existence.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by sillyputty



Yes, you are right to an EXTENT. 

I will give you credit for that. In each community, even in science there are certain defining characteristics and methods of interaction that prevail over others.

Boom, stop there. Thats point of debate #1. Science has a culture.

If you want to call it a culture, fine do so.

I will. Anyone else who wishes to be on the side of scholarship and truth should do the same.

Granted, the scientific community that investigates claims tries to be as impartial as possible so as to determine whether or not claims can be verified. You may assert that objectivity and the pursuit of it is a "culture" but you have to see that this same community changes its rules all the time. It tries to get BETTER. It is scientific about being scientific. Thats the thing. It is critical of even the practices that IT uses. Thats why research institutions have review boards and other certification entities meet constantly to develop new and more refined ways of allowing data to be analyzed.
ALL COMMUNITIES CHANGE THEIR RULES OVER TIME. It seems that the basic understanding of human society is lost on too many left brained Western Scientific zealots.

But how does that invalidate the claims suggested as a whole at their forefront. If you disagree, propose an alternative method through which we can validate claims. If your suggestion works better and there is more evidence to support it, then TRUST ME, everyone will adopt your method.
People want to progress and use the best possible tool through which they can understand the world. As it stands, this is the best way to do so...its not the ABSOLUTE way to do so. Until another way comes along, and it may, then this is the best tool we currently have. Not the ONLY tool. 

Do you see what i'm saying? 


I haven't shot down any scientific theories of the system itself, that would be foolish. What is equally foolish is disregarding the esoteric "right-brained" analysis of life, which is essential for an optimal and holistic understanding of existence.


This is whats messed up.
You're taking advantage of and in some cases manipulating the definitions to put rigorous experimentation into a box. 

BTW, your claim that all communities change their rules over time doesn't invalidate the CLAIMS that the communities assert.

 If religion changes over time that does make religion more TRUE? Hell no.

 It just means religions have changed how they make rules...not whether or not the rules are true or more plausible. Once again you're grouping concepts that are separate and independent of each other. 

If scientific bodies change their rules to say all conferences with poster presentations have to be done with women in bikinis, does that mean that the arguments the bodies present and the evidence used to support them is false? Nope. You're confusing the CONTEXT with the CONTENT. 

Its like when people say "i don't like how you're talking to me"...so? Is what the person saying true or false? Is it valid or invalid? Don't get trumped up on the transmission of the message over what the message is saying in the first place. 

The validity or veracity of what i'm saying doesn't change if I use smiley faces, or exclamation points. 

 

[back1ntheday]

*

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Religion is invalidated because of their countless revisions. If the claims on which they are based are ABSOLUTE as they claim to be then when they attempt to interpret their ABSOLUTE findings in a different way then they are in fact not absolute. 
Science doesn't claim to be absolute. It can only define things to a certain degree of reliability. Your measurements will never be completely accurate, your findings will never be able to model reality perfectly. Thats why it tries to refine things to as best of its ability as it can.

Religion doesn't claim to be absolute. Religion doesn't claim anything because it is an infinitely varied, yet lifeless entity. People may claim that their interpretation of a specific culture or document is the absolute truth but again you can define the sum of a whole by equating it exactly to only 1 of its parts...in short, don't generalize.

There are religions, which teach the way of no way.

There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic.

What if we stopped at optical microscopes. How would be able to now see that DNA IS a double helix or how various diseases and viruses look with electron or scanning microscopes? 

Science knows its limits and attemps to push them even farther.


All of these examples that you give seem to be coming from a defensive base as if I am seeking to discredit and disrespect science in the same manner that you are with religion, which is not the case. My belief is that it takes both calculating analytical observation and formless spiritual intuition for an optimal understanding of life. I'm all for creating better microscopes but without an equal advancement of spiritual technology, you're simply a dog chasing its tail.

Religion sets its limits but is forced to change them when society moves on beyond them. There is a reason Amish people aren't predominating christianity. Modern chrisians wouldn't dare live life like them but have moved on only picking and choosing what they want to support so as to let them cling to their old beliefs while benefiting from newer and updated theology while claiming it to be absolute. That is why religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

Science acknowledges its faults and moves on to being improved. It allots for the evolution of its methods. Religion does not yet it does so under the guise of moderates who pick and choose what suits them and yet illogically claim absolute authority. 

That is where your argument fails.

Your argument fails because you're making false assumptions about something that you are biased to the point of ignorance about.

There are religions, in which the only tenets revolve around perpetual change. Change achieved through the pursuit of continual internal perfection and the evolution of outdated theories. So your generalization of religious absolutism and immobility are inherently wrong.

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Its not about being a christian. The god concept is associated to religion. Thee are more religions than the big three/four. 
Every assertion made about what god is/does/exists presupposes several notions that people conjure up. 

Those cavemen saying that god created stuff and are doing things in the context of that god are living UNDER a particular doctrine they assume the god affords them. That is religion bro.

Religion creates the context for a god to exist.

What is so hard to understand about that? 

Thats the problem. You only assert that religion has to be like modern ones. Religions have existed of various components before the major religions have and in incredibly diverse environments. You have to expand the context of what you're talking about here. 

The caveman might be living with the idea of having a God creating the universe, whether you decide to call this a religion or not is again up to your philosophy. The people that are telling you that they believe in God and not religion mean to say that they don't believe in the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of God. They only believe in the intentional creation of the universe and you are arguing that they therefore subscribing to just a different religion. Fine, let's say I agree with you and you can say that the caveman has religion, but many atheists argue the weakness of believing in God by citing the fallacies of the modern religions. It's the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of modern religions, that they are using to argue the nonexistence of God, not the fact that it is called "religion". But you are using your inclusive definition of religion, and applying it to the caveman even though his form of religion has little to do with modern religion. Whether or not I decide to call the caveman's belief religion, has nothing to do with the fallacy of his belief.

My point is, your entire argument about whether or not you can believe in god without religion depends solely upon how you define religion, rather than whether or not God exists.

Well what else is there to cite besides modern religions? Obviously no one is threatened or directly influenced by the influence of fundamentalist Zoroastrianism. 
It doesn't matter if you call it religion or not, its the fact that his perception of "god" is HIS interpretation and none of it is corroborated with any significant, or empirical evidence. 

His "god" concept exists within a set of paramaters for what that god does and how it lives. Thats religion. 

Just because it is HIS interpretation doesn't mean that it's not possible for that to have actually happened. The caveman's thoughts and the actual truth is exclusive. Just because the caveman's interpretation includes the existence of God does not take out the possibility of the existence of God from the possibilities of the actual truth. All the theories we have right now with the most evidence only came from incredibly imaginative scientists postulating how something could happen. Perhaps they draw out their ideas on the evidence already given to them. But if you have 0 evidence, you start somewhere. Maybe to you this is foolish, that's fine. You're saying that we shouldn't think a certain way if we don't have any evidence or reason to believe it. And I agree with that.

However, if we look at just the notion of the existence or nonexistence of an entity making this universe, there's hardly any evidence for either. I don't know what you believe in, but I'm talking about the big bang because I think it's valid. But, the thing about the big bang is it just happens and no part of it says that it was the absolute first thing that happened. At one point, it doesn't exist, and then at the next, it suddenly does. Maybe because there's no evidence for whether this incident is random or not, I would assume that this sort of question doesn't stay very long in your thoughts. There is so much evidence for how the big bang started, but the question why hasn't been reached yet. This is the realm of God that people with no religion may choose to believe in. If this is foolish to you because there's no evidence for this at all, then I understand that and I'll accept being foolish. The caveman and I are sitting between two ideas that have almost no empirical evidence and we're picking one (the one that says the creation of the universe was a choice). Now just because it is a question with a what I could call a God and scenario that we made up in our minds does not exclude it being a valid question to eventually explore when our science has become sufficient especially because it's opposite hardly has any evidence either.

I will never tell you that my belief is how and why it happened. It was not my intention to tell you to believe the same way I do. I'm just trying to show you the God I described above over and over again is what I believe in and it has little to do with modern religion. Now you argue that I'm following a religion anyways. Fine. But you can't cite modern religion to show fallacy in my religion and you certainly can't show fallacy in my religion just by declaring that it is a religion in general and religions in general are false. Now if you can't show fallacy in my "religion"(it's not really religion but you want to call it that) yet, I hardly find the things you're saying to other people relevant to me. Now I'm not cowardly standing behind this "religion" because it is so far impossible to collect evidence for and against it, it's just what I believe. It's not impossible to show this religion is valid or false, we just can't do it yet. Yeah it seems cowardly and easy to stand behind, but that doesn't make it false.

This is my last reply to this thread because I think I've exhausted my explanation of my own thoughts and if you can't see where I'm coming from then your philosophy of various matters (like evidence and the notion of disproving) has you so far removed, that it's impossible for you to flex your mind and see the merits in something that disagrees with you. This whole argument has been about me trying to make you understand what I believe in, explained to you in terms of your philosophy. Rather than actually discussing the probability of my own belief, we've been unable to get past the intricacies of your philosophy.

 

[hankmoody]

Took me over an hour but this is a grea thread.


B Trolling 202

"You sound Asian"

That's absolutely pathetic man. Check this guy's twitter for true comedy. Wow.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Religion is invalidated because of their countless revisions. If the claims on which they are based are ABSOLUTE as they claim to be then when they attempt to interpret their ABSOLUTE findings in a different way then they are in fact not absolute. 
Science doesn't claim to be absolute. It can only define things to a certain degree of reliability. Your measurements will never be completely accurate, your findings will never be able to model reality perfectly. Thats why it tries to refine things to as best of its ability as it can.

Religion doesn't claim to be absolute. Religion doesn't claim anything because it is an infinitely varied, yet lifeless entity. People may claim that their interpretation of a specific culture or document is the absolute truth but again you can define the sum of a whole by equating it exactly to only 1 of its parts...in short, don't generalize.

There are religions, which teach the way of no way.

There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic.

What if we stopped at optical microscopes. How would be able to now see that DNA IS a double helix or how various diseases and viruses look with electron or scanning microscopes? 

Science knows its limits and attemps to push them even farther.


All of these examples that you give seem to be coming from a defensive base as if I am seeking to discredit and disrespect science in the same manner that you are with religion, which is not the case. My belief is that it takes both calculating analytical observation and formless spiritual intuition for an optimal understanding of life. I'm all for creating better microscopes but without an equal advancement of spiritual technology, you're simply a dog chasing its tail.

Religion sets its limits but is forced to change them when society moves on beyond them. There is a reason Amish people aren't predominating christianity. Modern chrisians wouldn't dare live life like them but have moved on only picking and choosing what they want to support so as to let them cling to their old beliefs while benefiting from newer and updated theology while claiming it to be absolute. That is why religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

Science acknowledges its faults and moves on to being improved. It allots for the evolution of its methods. Religion does not yet it does so under the guise of moderates who pick and choose what suits them and yet illogically claim absolute authority. 

That is where your argument fails.

Your argument fails because you're making false assumptions about something that you are biased to the point of ignorance about.

There are religions, in which the only tenets revolve around perpetual change. Change achieved through the pursuit of continual internal perfection and the evolution of outdated theories. So your generalization of religious absolutism and immobility are inherently wrong.





Religion does claim to be absolute. They recognize gods or entities that have absolute power, absolute presence, absolute knowledge, and infinite existence. 



If that doesn't equate to absolute, I don't know what does. 




Now you're just conflicting your definitions to fit your own bias here. 




So? Its when these entities make claims that have NO EVIDENCE BEHIND THEM that they lose credibility. That is the point that we keep coming back to. You can be an atheist buddhist...buddhism is just how you live your life. If you start subscribing to notions which have not been backed up by evidence however then it doesn't matter how mystical or intriguing some of it is, it can't be justified and thus you don't have a good reason for believing in it. 

Religion discredits itself without my effort by claiming absolute truths to things which have been better explained and more reliably justified by both more modern and evidential claims. 




Intuintion is not "spiritual" dude. There is no such thing as a "spiritual component" unless you're willing to prove this. 




If you're saying that it takes creativity to try and progress, then yes I agree. But creativity is merely nothing more than observing that already IS and trying to twist it to gain new understandings. 




That is what intuition is. It draws on experiences or predictions based on unique experiences to predict outcomes to a reliable degree. Thats all it is. When you suspect someone is lying, its that you've seen others lie to someone else in similar fashions or you don't think the story they're telling is true because you know from EXPERIENCE what a lie is. 

Bruh. What aren't you understanding? 




Religions CHANGE when people make up new stuff WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE and claim that their findings are ABSOLUTE and REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ABSOLUTE ENTITY. 




Science changes when new evidence is proposed that supports other claims to a greater degree that the previous claim.




You tell me which one is more honest.




If a religion is even centered around "perceptual change" then thats fine and no one cares...but if that religion asserts things that are not substantiated with proof or evidence then there is no reason to support those claims. That is what invalidates them. The same is true for dishonest scientists. If they assert things with unprovable or unsubstanitated claims then they are not able to support their findings.




Its all about evidence man. 




Evidence doesn't stop creativity, it doesn't hinder expression and it does not limit the ability to dream. But if you want to make a claim and have it be accepted to a reliable and consistently replicable degree then EVIDENCE is what is needed. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Im laughing with you...
whats pathetic about it...I inferred he was Asian.(which he never denied) did I say anything derogatory about Asian people? No. 

 

[foxdawg2000]

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Im laughing with you.

You sound Alaskan.



Continue with the tweets though. You have a flair for comedy!

edit: Wow this man is dense. You inferred? So what? Why bring it up in such a ,yes, derogatory manner? Why bring it up?

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

You have NO idea man...this irks me to no end...
I'm almost tempted to talk about this exclusively. 

Try finding a sista' to date that doesn't subscribe to this religious BS... 

Being an atheist and dating is worthy of trying to find a support group 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

You have NO idea man...this irks me to no end...
I'm almost tempted to talk about this exclusively. 

Try finding a sista' to date that doesn't subscribe to this religious BS... 

Being an atheist and dating is worthy of trying to find a support group 

Tell me about it, there's only so much I can "play along" with when it comes to this nonsense with a straight face.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by megachamploo


The caveman might be living with the idea of having a God creating the universe, whether you decide to call this a religion or not is again up to your philosophy. The people that are telling you that they believe in God and not religion mean to say that they don't believe in the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of God. They only believe in the intentional creation of the universe and you are arguing that they therefore subscribing to just a different religion. Fine, let's say I agree with you and you can say that the caveman has religion, but many atheists argue the weakness of believing in God by citing the fallacies of the modern religions. It's the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of modern religions, that they are using to argue the nonexistence of God, not the fact that it is called "religion". But you are using your inclusive definition of religion, and applying it to the caveman even though his form of religion has little to do with modern religion. Whether or not I decide to call the caveman's belief religion, has nothing to do with the fallacy of his belief.

My point is, your entire argument about whether or not you can believe in god without religion depends solely upon how you define religion, rather than whether or not God exists.

Well what else is there to cite besides modern religions? Obviously no one is threatened or directly influenced by the influence of fundamentalist Zoroastrianism. 
It doesn't matter if you call it religion or not, its the fact that his perception of "god" is HIS interpretation and none of it is corroborated with any significant, or empirical evidence. 

His "god" concept exists within a set of paramaters for what that god does and how it lives. Thats religion. 

Just because it is HIS interpretation doesn't mean that it's not possible for that to have actually happened. The caveman's thoughts and the actual truth is exclusive. Just because the caveman's interpretation includes the existence of God does not take out the possibility of the existence of God from the possibilities of the actual truth. All the theories we have right now with the most evidence only came from incredibly imaginative scientists postulating how something could happen. Perhaps they draw out their ideas on the evidence already given to them. But if you have 0 evidence, you start somewhere. Maybe to you this is foolish, that's fine. You're saying that we shouldn't think a certain way if we don't have any evidence or reason to believe it. And I agree with that.

However, if we look at just the notion of the existence or nonexistence of an entity making this universe, there's hardly any evidence for either. I don't know what you believe in, but I'm talking about the big bang because I think it's valid. But, the thing about the big bang is it just happens and no part of it says that it was the absolute first thing that happened. At one point, it doesn't exist, and then at the next, it suddenly does. Maybe because there's no evidence for whether this incident is random or not, I would assume that this sort of question doesn't stay very long in your thoughts. There is so much evidence for how the big bang started, but the question why hasn't been reached yet. This is the realm of God that people with no religion may choose to believe in. If this is foolish to you because there's no evidence for this at all, then I understand that and I'll accept being foolish. The caveman and I are sitting between two ideas that have almost no empirical evidence and we're picking one (the one that says the creation of the universe was a choice). Now just because it is a question with a what I could call a God and scenario that we made up in our minds does not exclude it being a valid question to eventually explore when our science has become sufficient especially because it's opposite hardly has any evidence either.

I will never tell you that my belief is how and why it happened. It was not my intention to tell you to believe the same way I do. I'm just trying to show you the God I described above over and over again is what I believe in and it has little to do with modern religion. Now you argue that I'm following a religion anyways. Fine. But you can't cite modern religion to show fallacy in my religion and you certainly can't show fallacy in my religion just by declaring that it is a religion in general and religions in general are false. Now if you can't show fallacy in my "religion"(it's not really religion but you want to call it that) yet, I hardly find the things you're saying to other people relevant to me. Now I'm not cowardly standing behind this "religion" because it is so far impossible to collect evidence for and against it, it's just what I believe. It's not impossible to show this religion is valid or false, we just can't do it yet. Yeah it seems cowardly and easy to stand behind, but that doesn't make it false.

This is my last reply to this thread because I think I've exhausted my explanation of my own thoughts and if you can't see where I'm coming from then your philosophy of various matters (like evidence and the notion of disproving) has you so far removed, that it's impossible for you to flex your mind and see the merits in something that disagrees with you. This whole argument has been about me trying to make you understand what I believe in, explained to you in terms of your philosophy. Rather than actually discussing the probability of my own belief, we've been unable to get past the intricacies of your philosophy.

Being imaginative is where good theories start. 



You are right. They start from somewhere....but you know what happens next?




YOU TEST THEM.




If they don't stand up to the test then you try refining your approach.




If they continually don't stand up to the test you can't assert it as reasonable or justifiable. 


There is nothing wrong with creativity and imagination...but your imagination can't be supported and thus manifested if you don't test it... otherwise you're free to assert anything and NEVER be wrong. 




First of all, because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we won't in the future. Saying "we haven't done it yet" doesn't mean anything. If we thought this way, we would have given up on trying to solve AIDS a long time ago.




Secondly, i take it that you don't understand the big bang. Do I believe the big bang? Not completely. Surprising huh? You know why? I don't understand it all. I'm not saying its wrong, I just don't really really know the ins and outs of it. Its high level math and reasoning. However I suggest you to look at this lecture by Lawrence Krauss entitled "Universe from Nothing" on Youtube. It breaks down a lot of the major tenets of what that body of science is asserting.




I understand why the faithful find it hard to look into other theories because they are somewhat correct in asserting that they dont know and they may never know. Scientists may never know either but trying to assert theories and compile evidence isn't a bad thing. There IS a problem however with accepting a religious explanation that offers no leeway of ever being wrong or challenged. That is what is NOT helpful in pushing us closer to the truth. 




Now you're just being dense. You ignore the fallacies exposed in your religion. Then you say that you can't collect evidence to support your religion. Its just what you believe.




Thats just dandy. 




Because you've shown why NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE YOU. You have no justification for anything you believe other than that you want to do it and you've admitted that you believe only in what you WANT to believe in. 




I never have said any one is FALSE. I'm saying the CLAIMS YOU MAKE ARE NOT PROVEN OR SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE. 




It doesn't disprove your claims it just does not PROVE them. Thats the point here. It doesn't say you are false. It simply says your view are not true. 




If you want to discuss the probability of your believe thats fine and we can do that...but you haven't done that. You haven't proven your beliefs or shown evidence.




Additionally you have admitted that no proof or evidence could convince you otherwise. I admit that I can be corrected but you need to prove your stance or show evidence. I've been wrong tons of times thats why if you're going to challenge what i'm saying, point out what you disagree with and we can move from there. 


How can you take fault with me asking for your evidence in light of you refusing to provide it? What reason do I have to believe you then? I'm not understanding. 




Additionally i have explained to you that no one can DISPROVE anything. When you provide evidence you SUPPORT another claim to a greater extent than the previous one. To say that we "disprove" something is a misnomer and inaccurate. Evidence supports claims. It doesn't disprove a claim at the same time it supports another. 




In court you don't DISPROVE a claim. You assert that the evidence points to another conclusion than the one in dispute. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Im laughing with you.

You sound Alaskan.



Continue with the tweets though. You have a flair for comedy!

I'm glad your entertained 'bro'. I'm not Alaskan. 
..I'm AMERICAN. Not a EUROPEAN immigrant, y'all are sneaky, devious people. How are y'all gonna steal native land, call yourselves Americans because you were ran out of your home country, and enslave an entire race of people along the way and continue to act innocent? 
smh...another color coded wall of text from sillypitty talking about evidence....sillypitty must not realize he is our biggest proof that God exists...look at the lengths he will go to disprove something he doesn't believe in the first place.

 How can you argue against something that doesn't exist in the first place? Thats not rationally correct. 

You never answered me when I asked you what is the purpose of expressing Atheism, since self-expression and spirituality have a clear cut social utility within the existing social order.  

If you were a true atheist, why can't you focus your attention on a topic you can prove with empirical evidence hypocrite?...I'll be as narcissistic as I want with anybody who refers to themselves as an atheist...because in reality your asking for it. 

[table][tr][td]

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr][/table]

God isn't religion. I believe Christianity is flawed fundamentally because Christ was never meant to be deified.I believe Christ was a prophet and messenger for his time, you can see how the deification of a white jesus has had its psychological effects on people to associate whiteness with purity and blackness with evil. Which is why Islam, as a  continuation of the Abrahamic tradition of ONE GOD,  strictly prevented Muhammad from being deified. I believe we all face judgment before the creator after death, God is the only 1.  

It's evolution baby! ...not everybody makes it, I guess Darwin was right after all

 

 

[flyjr22]

I'm not going to get into the whole "is there a god or isnt there" but i will ask this. How much would you care about an idea such as god if death didnt exist? Honestly tell me how big of a deal would god be if we were immortal, the fact that we are subject to death makes us mentally weak when it comes to the idea of god. I asked people who were deeply into their faiths if there is a god (which im not doubting there is) how did this god create itself? The only answer i could come up with myself is that the Universe/Multiverses became conscious of itself. An organism is not necessary for consciousness. Also if beings as measely as ourselves exist, with all the great power of the cosmos why can it not be possible for a supreme being greater than us to exist in some form.....


Food for thought

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Im laughing with you.

You sound Alaskan.



Continue with the tweets though. You have a flair for comedy!

I'm glad your entertained 'bro'. I'm not Alaskan. 



..I'm AMERICAN. Not a EUROPEAN immigrant, y'all are sneaky, devious people. How are y'all gonna steal native land, call yourselves Americans because you were ran out of your home country, and enslave an entire race of people along the way and continue to act innocent? 
smh...another color coded wall of text from sillypitty talking about evidence....sillypitty must not realize he is our biggest proof that God exists...look at the lengths he will go to disprove something he doesn't believe in the first place.

 How can you argue against something that doesn't exist in the first place? Thats not rationally correct. 

You never answered me when I asked you what is the purpose of expressing Atheism, since self-expression and spirituality have a clear cut social utility within the existing social order.  

If you were a true atheist, why can't you focus your attention on a topic you can prove with empirical evidence hypocrite?...I'll be as narcissistic as I want with anybody who refers to themselves as an atheist...because in reality your asking for it. 


[table][tr][td]

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

[/td][/tr][tr][td][/td][/tr][/table]

God isn't religion. I believe Christianity is flawed fundamentally because Christ was never meant to be deified.I believe Christ was a prophet and messenger for his time, you can see how the deification of a white jesus has had its psychological effects on people to associate whiteness with purity and blackness with evil. Which is why Islam, as a  continuation of the Abrahamic tradition of ONE GOD,  strictly prevented Muhammad from being deified. I believe we all face judgment before the creator after death, God is the only 1.  




It's evolution baby! ...not everybody makes it, I guess Darwin was right after all

 

Ah ok...so we're playing the imperialist white pigs game. How un-bigoted of you. 

If you want to make this a political commentary on a group of people who could not control the actions of their ancestors, let me know because as far as I'm concerned, nothing you're saying has anything to do with the topic. 




You are asserting a god exists.




You won't provide evidence of this claim.




I have no reason to believe you. 




If you argue with your kids that their imaginary friend doesn't exist, does that mean their friends exist?




if you debate with someone if pigs with wings exist then does that mean pigs with wings exist? 




I only debate this because these claims without evidence behind them affect our policy legally in this country unfortunately. Only by addressing them can we remove ideology that is not methodically reasoned out and backed up with evidence. 




I don't see anyone caring too much about horoscopes. 




This sentence is a non-sequitur. It makes no sense. Its subject doesn't not support the predicate. 




Explain what you mean and show how you support the claim that spirituality and "expression" have a role in "social order"




A true atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods. I'm not asserting anything. I do not believe in a god. You assert that there is a god. I do not. Its on you to support your assertion. 




If I was to prove another subject with empirical evidence, the discussion wouldn't matter if I was an atheist or not since that conversation wouldn't involve religion but whatever topic being discussed. Atheism has nothing to do with math, psychology, history, or football. 




You can be as narcissistic as you want but how are atheists "asking" for it? This makes no sense. 




You say you can speak to atheists any way you want. Why is that? Would you rather me believe in SOMETHING else rather than nothing? 




What if I believe in another god? Does that make me more valid in your eyes than to not believe in anything at all? This is why you're not making any sense.




if I am, in your eyes, legitimate for believing in something as opposed to nothing, even if its a different god then it invalidates your "only" god because you have to acknowledge that god I hypothetically believe in. 




So you have to to admit that other gods exist. 




You assert we will face "judgment" after you die...but thats the thing smart guy. 




That proves that YOUR BELIEF IN GOD is religious based.




Not all religions believe in a "judgment"




You do.




Why do you believe that? You have to support your claim. 




This is where your argument (again) falls apart. 

 

[antonlavey]

^^^Love how dude brings up Abrahamic religions, completely ignoring other religious traditions from other cultures (Asian, West African, South American) many of which were polytheistic religious traditions and had nothing to do with Muhammad and Abraham.



LOL from what I've seen about your character in this thread and many other threads, are you so confident about how you are going to be judged in the afterlife? Well unless God is equally ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical and hateful in which case you're a shoe in to heaven

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by FlyJr22

I'm not going to get into the whole "is there a god or isnt there" but i will ask this. How much would you care about an idea such as god if death didnt exist? Honestly tell me how big of a deal would god be if we were immortal, the fact that we are subject to death makes us mentally weak when it comes to the idea of god. I asked people who were deeply into their faiths if there is a god (which im not doubting there is) how did this god create itself? The only answer i could come up with myself is that the Universe/Multiverses became conscious of itself. An organism is not necessary for consciousness. Also if beings as measely as ourselves exist, with all the great power of the cosmos why can it not be possible for a supreme being greater than us to exist in some form.....


Food for thought

I was reading to see what you meant.
Up the bolded part you ask an interesting question. If it wasn't for death, why would a god matter to most people. This is true. Death preoccupies many peoples infatuation with "god"

However the bolded part makes an assertion that you don't support. 

How did the universe become conscious of itself and how do you signify that?




How is an organism not needed for "consciousness" and what do you mean by that?




If we exist, how does that equate to the existence of a god? 

This doesn't make any sense. You say because you exist then theres a higher power? How do you reasonably make that jump in logic???

 

[Pathos]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

You have NO idea man...this irks me to no end...
I'm almost tempted to talk about this exclusively. 

Try finding a sista' to date that doesn't subscribe to this religious BS... 

Being an atheist and dating is worthy of trying to find a support group 

but i think "belief" is what made the slaves want freedom 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by RetroSan

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

To me it's always been puzzling how black americans that complain about white oppression subscribe to the religion that was forced on them during the slave trade... just a thought

You have NO idea man...this irks me to no end...
I'm almost tempted to talk about this exclusively. 

Try finding a sista' to date that doesn't subscribe to this religious BS... 

Being an atheist and dating is worthy of trying to find a support group 

but i think "belief" is what made the slaves want freedom 

Belief is a part of what kept them in check for hundred of years

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by RetroSan

Originally Posted by sillyputty


You have NO idea man...this irks me to no end...
I'm almost tempted to talk about this exclusively. 

Try finding a sista' to date that doesn't subscribe to this religious BS... 

Being an atheist and dating is worthy of trying to find a support group 

but i think "belief" is what made the slaves want freedom 

Belief is a part of what kept them in check for hundred of years

The biblical "Curse of Ham" was used to justify a lot of slavery in this country.
Additionally faith worked both ways for slaves. It gave them something to "look foward to" 

Imagine if your life sucks SO much that you have to dream of having a better life WHEN YOU DIE. 

That is unimaginable. It is purely a means of coping with the stress of just being a slave day in and day out. 

However, none of this makes it true. 

Granted "faith" allowed them to seek freedom...but don't confuse faith with determination and zeal and resolve. Confidence is what drove slaves to push back. 

Believing in the same god for salvation used to justify your enslavement seems contradictory beyond repair. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Ah ok...so we're playing the imperialist white pigs game. How un-bigoted of you. 

If you want to make this a political commentary on a group of people who could not control the actions of their ancestors, let me know because as far as I'm concerned, nothing you're saying has anything to do with the topic. 

How un-bigoted of me? The state of humanity is directly connected to the actions of your culture and race, and thus the driving force of your being and why you are expressing Atheism.

So are you in a position to refer to me as a bigot? I have no problem being referred to as a bigot by the likes of you. It has everything to do with the topic because everything is interrelated..thats how the universe works. 




Of course you'll continue to dodge the narrative of history and continue your atheist crusade...Western civilization's legacy is nothing but a path of destruction..justified by material accomplishment and social relationships..thats why I don't have to argue or reason because it would be counter-intuitive...the dialect speaks for itself. 




Anton, I have an appreciation for Oriental culture/spirituality as well,  seeing how my grandmother is Dutch-Indonesian. Polytheism can be found in the Hindu religion, but I feel polytheism is really like the 99 names of God in Islam, meaning polytheism is an expression used to describe different qualities of the same Supreme God. Polytheistic beliefs have a hierarchy of gods am I right?




In reality I don't belong to any organized religion. I belong to God. Orthodox religion is filled with corruption so I can understand skeptics, but your faith shouldn't be in people in the first place. 




I won't hesitate to hurl rhetorical venom at you if you express atheist beliefs...that doesn't mean I'm a bad person..Do you believe in right & wrong? 

 

[oidreez]

wow 33 pages.. um I'm a Christian so I believe because I have faith in His existence and I believe that there are some tribulations that I have endured throughout my life that I couldn't have gotten through by myself

 

[masterchef]

because he understands me… and where d1 1 come from…
for mw 1ts harder to not bel1ve 1n god than to bel1eve 1n god...