Religion...

seriously, read A Paradise Lost by Milton.
Amazing book.
To sum up your opinion in the way the book describes, God is basically a victim of his own vanity and good will.
It's fictional of course but it lays out both sides, Gods and the Devils in a very convincing argument for both.

It's like this,
Predogma Lucifer is the most exaulted of all angels and sits at the left hand of God only superseded by Jesus and the Holy Ghost. He is the angel all the other angels look up to and he is extremely loyal to God.
God in his vanity, who sees himself so far above the angels and the holy choir knows what they are missing that he has. So gives them the gift of basic emotions. Seems like a nice gesture right? Except that Envy/Jealousy is one of those basic emotions.
So Lucifer who's so loyal to God is the first to embrace this gift of emotions and set a good example for the other angels. The problem is, he's at the top of the pyramid. He has to be envious of someone and there's really only one person above his station. So he becomes envious of God. The book plays off his side of the fight as Satan just being a victim of God's supposed good will. So Lucifer, just doing his duty and trying to be a good leader of the angels, started conspiring against God and really making good use of his gift of jealousy. The rest is history. God sees the conspiring and lays the lordbrar ban hammer down, some go with Satan and become demons, some stay with God, others never make up their mind and fall into limbo.

So right as you think God is being a total dick he goes and TOTALLY redeems himself. He decides to make an impartial being in his image and says there, now you no longer need to be envious of me. There's someone well below your position. Except that in the interest of furthering the beings he gives them one God like power no angel has ever had. The ability to reproduce. Which really starts to piss some angels/demons off making it a personal matter thus humans soon become the pawns in the war between heaven and hell with only one rule in the cage. Both sides have to keep a respective and reasonable distance called Faith.

That is of course me putting a very long and complicated fictious what-if type book into my own ridiculous wording, but i agree. Both the God and Satan they teach you in catholic school are "douche bags" in the sense that they both are very vein and self serving. No atheists definitely aren't irrational. They see exactly what the religious people see and say, WTF Bro? Why? Even as a religious person myself. I definitely understand where they're coming from. I just don't get the motivation to preach it.
 


Ar Scion said:
Wait, so insufficient scientific evidence means it doesn't exist? As in, prior to the discovery of germs, germs didn't exist?

You're making my case, buddy. Most atheistic beliefs are irrational.

If you were rational, you would believe that insufficient evidence simply means insufficient evidence. It has no bearing on actual existence or non-existence of currently unknown entities.

Now if any atheists believed THAT, they'd be rational.
Click to expand...

Evidence has no bearing on the existence of something. Evidence however tells us about the probability of something existing. Evidence is the clue we use to work out how likely our conclusions are.

If someone broke into your house and left behind a mans hat. You can use that evidence to conclude that it was probably a man who did the robbery. However it still could very well be a woman, but just you'd have likely cause for believing otherwise.

Now, when we're talking about God we must again look at the evidence. Certainly, the biblical God and story have very little evidence in their favor. There are thousands of creation myths out their and Christianity seems no more likely the truth than any other. They each have the same amount of evidence supporting them: almost none.

Becuase of this we must dismiss them as hypothesis not worth entertaining until further evidence is brought to the table.

What you fail to realize is that the burden of proof is upon you. You are supporting an elaborate explanation of the universe and so it is up to you to prove this.

Personally I'm happy to say I'm pretty sure man evolved from a small single cell organism over many millions of years and our planet has it's roots in a very small space which is the root of the universe. Anything further and I'm happy to say I don't know.
 
Ar Scion said:
Wait, so insufficient scientific evidence means it doesn't exist? As in, prior to the discovery of germs, germs didn't exist?

You're making my case, buddy. Most atheistic beliefs are irrational.

If you were rational, you would believe that insufficient evidence simply means insufficient evidence. It has no bearing on actual existence or non-existence of currently unknown entities.
Click to expand...

No, insufficient scientific evidence does NOT mean it doesnt exist, it just means theres no reason to believe it DOES exist.

Thats being rational. What isnt being rational, is saying "hey, i think this thing exists but i've got pretty much no evidence for it, but its up to you to prove me wrong".

Prior to the discovery of Germs, there was no debate about their existence because we simply didn't know about them. You say i'm irrational, yet your analogy is hilarious. Do you know what people thought Germs were before science came along and enlightened us??

Yep, they thought it was God punishing the Sinners.

I agree insufficient evidence simply means insufficient evidence, and right now, the case for a God = insufficient evidence which means i do not beleive until proven otherwise.
 
Dark Cognitive said:
And you have a ridiculous understanding of what Atheists believe.

Modern day Atheists simply don't believe in deities because there's insufficient scientific evidence for it.

On the other hand, plenty of Atheists believe that black holes exist, because they have quite a bit of supporting scientific evidence.... yet they can't be detected, or very well understood.



Are you being serious?.....I have never once heard an Atheist say "God doesnt exist because we dont understand why he doesnt act in the way we want"... and that is certainly NOT an Atheists 'Grandest' piece of evidence.

Yet i hear plenty of Atheists talk about evolution, how old the earth actually is, and the lack of current proof of a God existing.

Atheists know fine well that they cannot prove god doesn't exist, and religious people cant prove that he does, all we can use is the data and evidence we have, and come to a logical conclusion.

Or you could just be Christian about it and have 'faith' and throw reason out the window.
Click to expand...

Well spoken!
 
Dgillen said:
What you fail to realize is that the burden of proof is upon you. You are supporting an elaborate explanation of the universe and so it is up to you to prove this.
Click to expand...

A big problem is proof is subjective. Additionally, as noted earlier, just because people couldn't prove germs existed many years ago, doesn't mean they were wrong for making such a claim. They were just ahead of "evidence". It is possible to reach accurate conclusions without evidence or science.
 
slayerment said:
A big problem is proof is subjective. Additionally, as noted earlier, just because people couldn't prove germs existed many years ago, doesn't mean they were wrong for making such a claim. They were just ahead of "evidence". It is possible to reach accurate conclusions without evidence or science.
Click to expand...
How do you reach the right conclusion without using evidence?

I can only assert that you don't know what evidence is. Evidence doesn't have to be looking down a microscope at a germ. It can be the reasonable observation that as there are living creatures that are small but visible on animals, which have a negative effect (fleas for example), it's possible that there are even smaller creatures which cause illness.
 
Ar Scion said:
Wait, so insufficient scientific evidence means it doesn't exist? As in, prior to the discovery of germs, germs didn't exist?

You're making my case, buddy. Most atheistic beliefs are irrational.

If you were rational, you would believe that insufficient evidence simply means insufficient evidence. It has no bearing on actual existence or non-existence of currently unknown entities.

Now if any atheists believed THAT, they'd be rational.



Granted, people do that. But that doesn't warrant labelling everything a made-up fantasy.

In fact, you'd have to actually think about what you're suggesting, and ask yourself how plausible it is. Do people today spontaneously start lying to themselves and others because they can't stand perma-death?

Hard to put any stock in that idea. Smells like bullshit.
Click to expand...


So what exactly do you believe in? Teach us the Truth, the Answers, share your Wisdom oh great one. We're all ears.
 
Dgillen said:
How do you reach the right conclusion without using evidence?

I can only assert that you don't know what evidence is. Evidence doesn't have to be looking down a microscope at a germ. It can be the reasonable observation that as there are living creatures that are small but visible on animals, which have a negative effect (fleas for example), it's possible that there are even smaller creatures which cause illness.
Click to expand...

There are lots of ways. I'm not saying it is the smartest thing to do or the best thing to do, but it is possible. You can simply take what a friend tells you at face value, you can take what your government says at face value (which Americans love), you can go with your gut, you can go with partial or circumstantial evidence. What I'm trying to say is evidence isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. Some people are okay with reading about something. Some people may need a picture for evidence. Others a video. Still others need to see something in person. And still others need to be able to quantify it at the atomic level. Everything exists in various degrees and we make of it what we will. Some people will never believe something no matter how much evidence you give. Some people will count the most simple thing as evidence. Evidence, and science ultimately, is subjective.

I agree that evidence and the scientific method trump pretty much anything we have on earth. But when evidence and science draws a blank sometimes it is still possible to reach accurate conclusions (earth being round) without them.

Just trying to add to the discussion. I totally see your point and agree.
 
Ar Scion said:
In fact, you'd have to actually think about what you're suggesting, and ask yourself how plausible it is. Do people today spontaneously start lying to themselves and others because they can't stand perma-death?.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's highly probable. It's hard enough losing your wife, or kids, or parents to death.. let alone knowing you're soon to follow. So ancient man's free time was spent thinking about this inevitable fucked-up occurrence. We know how ancient man came up with fantasies for other things they couldn't explain.. so why not come up with fantasies for the most important thing that they couldn't explain (Death of little Johny). Where did my lil Johny go? Where is he now? I can't handle the death of lil Johny!!!

This bullshit word diarrhea could go on forever and it has in other topics and forums. So I'll just say one more thing. If i told you I believed in the flying spaghetti monster you'd know I was spewing bullshit. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Philosophy has little to do with it. That's just what you'd know. So basically, I am the same way with every other god fantasy.. I know the stories are all bullshit. The stories are just as fucking ridiculous.

Of course, when most non-religious people say "I know" they mean "most probably". So yes, the spaghetti monster could exist, and so could Odin, but I give it less than 0.000001% chance of those fantasies being true.

You don't need a philosophy degree to understand why religion is bullshit. You just need to have some common sense. It also helps if you're not highly invested in a religion already. Religion is actually more about psychology and emotion than anything else. Religion is the denial of death.
 
Dark Cognitive said:
No, insufficient scientific evidence does NOT mean it doesnt exist, it just means theres no reason to believe it DOES exist.

Thats being rational. What isnt being rational, is saying "hey, i think this thing exists but i've got pretty much no evidence for it, but its up to you to prove me wrong".

Prior to the discovery of Germs, there was no debate about their existence because we simply didn't know about them. You say i'm irrational, yet your analogy is hilarious. Do you know what people thought Germs were before science came along and enlightened us??

Yep, they thought it was God punishing the Sinners.

I agree insufficient evidence simply means insufficient evidence, and right now, the case for a God = insufficient evidence which means i do not beleive until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Now we're saying no scientific evidence = "no reason to believe". That comes with it's own challenges.

If I remember leaving my shoes at the door last night, my memory alone would not amount to scientific evidence. According to atheists, we cannot believe our own memories, because we have no (scientific) reason to.

Qualifying your statement doesn't get you out of the hole your atheism has dug you into, because it requires rejecting everything non-scientific as not warranting belief.

Are you willing to actually hold your intellect to this standard? Or are you like me- do you sit on chairs believing they won't collapse without a shred of scientific evidence to back that belief up?
 
sennin436 said:
So what exactly do you believe in? Teach us the Truth, the Answers, share your Wisdom oh great one. We're all ears.
Click to expand...

One word.

Bacon. Bow your knee.

crispy_bacon_1.jpg
 
Ar Scion said:
If I remember leaving my shoes at the door last night, my memory alone would not amount to scientific evidence. According to atheists, we cannot believe our own memories, because we have no (scientific) reason to.

Are you willing to actually hold your intellect to this standard? Or are you like me- do you sit on chairs believing they won't collapse without a shred of scientific evidence to back that belief up?
Click to expand...

These are, without doubt, the two stupidest paragraphs I have ever read. I feel a fool for engaging in this discussion with you.
 
WickedJoe said:
I'd say it's highly probable. It's hard enough losing your wife, or kids, or parents to death.. let alone knowing you're soon to follow. So ancient man's free time was spent thinking about this inevitable fucked-up occurrence. We know how ancient man came up with fantasies for other things they couldn't explain.. so why not come up with fantasies for the most important thing that they couldn't explain (Death of little Johny). Where did my lil Johny go? Where is he now? I can't handle the death of lil Johny!!!

This bullshit word diarrhea could go on forever and it has in other topics and forums. So I'll just say one more thing. If i told you I believed in the flying spaghetti monster you'd know I was spewing bullshit. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Philosophy has little to do with it. That's just what you'd know. So basically, I am the same way with every other god fantasy.. I know the stories are all bullshit. The stories are just as fucking ridiculous.

Of course, when most non-religious people say "I know" they mean "most probably". So yes, the spaghetti monster could exist, and so could Odin, but I give it less than 0.000001% chance of those fantasies being true.

You don't need a philosophy degree to understand why religion is bullshit. You just need to have some common sense. It also helps if you're not highly invested in a religion already. Religion is actually more about psychology and emotion than anything else. Religion is the denial of death.
Click to expand...

You're presuming that ancient man had free time, and his free time was not spent on acquiring food, building shelters or keeping himself and his community safe, it was wasted on devising grand fantasies to cope with death when death was already all around him- animals and people dying left and right.

Fantasies that he and everybody around him know to be blatantly untrue and bordering on delusion.

And yet, even after seeing evidence of the truth, people spring for delusion. And evolution doesn't wipe these deluded people out, it favors their survival and reproduction.

Not plausible in the very least. But valiant effort nonetheless.
 
Dgillen said:
These are, without doubt, the two stupidest paragraphs I have ever read. I feel a fool for engaging in this discussion with you.
Click to expand...

I thought it was stupid too.

But I had to be polite. Didn't want to insult your beliefs.
 
Ar Scion said:
Now we're saying no scientific evidence = "no reason to believe". That comes with it's own challenges.

If I remember leaving my shoes at the door last night, my memory alone would not amount to scientific evidence. According to atheists, we cannot believe our own memories, because we have no (scientific) reason to.

Qualifying your statement doesn't get you out of the hole your atheism has dug you into, because it requires rejecting everything non-scientific as not warranting belief.

Are you willing to actually hold your intellect to this standard? Or are you like me- do you sit on chairs believing they won't collapse without a shred of scientific evidence to back that belief up?
Click to expand...


Your memory wouldn't amount to scientific evidence, no. And as an outsider, how the hell would i know you left your shoes at the door without evidence?? I wouldn't, therefore i'd need more proof to know that it actually happened. If you are going to convince someone else something happened (and not yourself) then memories mean nothing to someone else.

I've also trusted my memory and went to get my keys from where i thought i left them, and they werent there.

My brain was wrong. So even if i did 'believe' without any evidence, it would still be wrong.

When i sit on a chair, i know they probably wont collapse because i know the laws of physics, which has a great deal of scientific evidence for it.

I've also tested this by growing up, and sitting on chairs. My brain can quite easily correlate what will and what wont hold my wait due to years of trial and error. Science in action, if you will. But at the end of the day, i have no way of knowing 100% whether the chair will collapse or not, but i can use a good deal of experience and science to work out that it probably wont.


Anyway, i'm out. The debate has been steered into ridiculous territory so i'm sure someone else will answer your simplistic questions.
 
<OhLookThisThreadAgain.jpg>

Jeez, what's up with the Theism trolling this week? Is this like the 3rd thread now, or 4th?

For the record, if you believe in any higher powers at all that you can't prove exist; you're going to feel silly later when you finally do realize that you're a dumbass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom