Religious Belief Throwdown

[stitch 0]

Quote

Quote

>
To be an atheist, you have to believe there is no God. And there is as little proof for that as there is proof for there being a God.

First of all, you can't prove the absence of something. If I tell you there's a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, how can you prove me wrong?

Hubbell space telescope.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

>
To be an atheist, you have to believe there is no God. And there is as little proof for that as there is proof for there being a God.

First of all, you can't prove the absence of something. If I tell you there's a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, how can you prove me wrong?

The burden is to prove god exists. Bt even so, there are logical contradictions, empirical evidence, and physical impossibilities that make the hypothesis 'God exists" more than likely false. I can;t say with 100% certainty, but I can say it with overwhelming confidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrKvzPXULME

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The only thing I ponder, is if the universe is finite as it is currently claimed. Then what is outside of it's boundaries??

I wonder about that shit too. Pass the bong please.

. . =(_8^(1)

[deibido 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>
To be an atheist, you have to believe there is no God. And there is as little proof for that as there is proof for there being a God.

First of all, you can't prove the absence of something. If I tell you there's a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, how can you prove me wrong?

Hubbell space telescope.

Oh this teapot is invisible to the EM spectrum, and you know . . . very tiny.

"User assumes all risk"

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Atheism isn't a religion, so really they don't get a say.

To be inclusive we'll let Atheists in too, though.

I'll start for them:

They do have a very good church, it's called The Church of Reality. "If it's real, we believe in it".

You see, the average atheist tends to believe in things that can be proven, so it isn't really so much about belief as it is about verifiable evidence for this wacky group of radical realists. The best part of this belief system is that it allows for change in the face of new evidence.

Basically, the idea is not to believe in anything for which there is no direct evidence, and to disregard that for which there is contradictory evidence.

Simple enough.

Why should I bother to argue with something which claims to be just a walking bag of chemicals?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

All religions bring your A-game and show that your truth is THE truth, not just insane ramblings.

"Don't run, we are your friends."

"We come in peace."

Oh wait, those quotes came from Mars Attacks. My bad.

However, there has always been peace through superior firepower. The religion with the best military has always been later proven to be correct. The losing religion is then referred to as "mythology".

Once you've been conquered, your religion becomes a fable.

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Can you show that your religious beliefs amount to something more than complete delusion?

All religions bring your A-game and show that your truth is THE truth, not just insane ramblings***

Words mean little, actions and results mean everything. If anyone has found the
Truth their life will show it.

________________________________________

• Quote

[MegaGoliath11 0]

Quote

Quote

Agnostics, while honest, are rather boring for our purposes here.

An agnostic is an atheist with a brain.

not really, its someone who won't pick a hole, let alone run with it. (football analogy) (a person who can't/won't make a decision to either side) This is not necessarily bad , but christianity doesn't except undecided positions, well then, I guess they believe in the possibility of god outside a specific religious context, shit.... screw it this is a dumb topic. let go jump!......

Christians believe in God due to faith. When you get to the bottom of it, they must choose to have faith based on some deep inner conviction.

Atheism is a word constructed out of a Christian world-view to define and sometimes villianize somebody different than them. But lets get real do you call a guy who doesn't eat pizza a non-pizza eater? yeah yeah there are non-drinkers but you get the point.

either way I've learned that it foolish to argue about such things. People will believe what they will.....and folks should respect that.

oh about the quote "There's no atheists in foxholes" that's a load of crap, don't ask me how I know...

[lawrocket 3]

>>>just call me the Devil's advocate

So you aren't atheist. You acknowledge Satan.


P.s. Please don't set me up like that again...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

>>> Requesting that assertions be proved with evidence

Okay. Give me evidence that there is no god. I mean emprical studies designed to demonstrat the lack.

This doesn't mean, "I asked God to help me bang Suzi."

Therein lies the issue. There is a similar lack of evidence to support or deny the existence. That's why it is dogmatic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[deibido 0]

Quote

>>> Requesting that assertions be proved with evidence

Okay. Give me evidence that there is no god. I mean emprical studies designed to demonstrat the lack.

This doesn't mean, "I asked God to help me bang Suzi."

Therein lies the issue. There is a similar lack of evidence to support or deny the existence. That's why it is dogmatic.

There is no need for evidence to demonstrate that something is not real. This is obvious and has been said over and over.

Give me evidence that there is no Santa Claus. Other than that he didn't give you a pony that year.

Really, it's rabid dogma to say there is no Santa.

The one making fantastic claims must support them, not stand there and say prove it's wrong.

There is no need to refute "God" as there has never been one shred of evidence supporting it.


Oh, and Hail Satan. . . .

"User assumes all risk"

[stitch 0]

Quote

"I asked God to help me bang Suzi."

It worked for Jimmy Swagart and Jim Bakker.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[deibido 0]

From The Church of Reality:

Quote

Religions assert a belief in deities. Atheism asserts there are no deities but stops there. Realism directly challenges other religions on the basis of what is real. Whether God exists or God doesn't exist is the wrong debate. Why waste our time arguing about fiction when there's all this wonderful reality around us to explore. When it comes down to it, Atheism isn't any more relevant than Theism because both sides are focused on the unreal. But who is there to talk about what is real? We are. We are the Church of Reality and we are here to explore reality as it really is. We are here to answer the tough questions, to explore the big issues. We are here to do the hard work of making reality work in the real world.

A person is defined by what they believe in, not by what they don't believe in. You are defined by what you are, not by what you aren't.
Realism is about something. Atheism is about nothing. Yes it is true that there is no God, but so what? There are a lot of things I don't believe in that don't exist so why is not believing in God any more important than not believing in Spider Man? God doesn't exist and God is therefore not important. Atheists are doing important but limited work in making the point against a very big myth but Atheism is at best just the first step in awakening to the wonders of reality.

Choose Reality

http://www.churchofreality.org

"User assumes all risk"

[billvon 3,120]

>Without evidence that it exists, it is meaningless to say that it "could" exist.

Fortunately, the Wright Brothers, Igor Sikorsky, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison disagreed.

>You can theorize that it is possible for God to exist, and I will agree with
>you. If you state that God exists I will ask for evidence. Fair enough?

Sure!

>That for which there is no evidence must be considered unreal.

Again, not true in the sciences. We have no direct evidence that there are earth-like planets circling other stars, but scientists do not consider such planets "unreal." Indeed, they are statistically nearly certain.

Likewise, we had no solid evidence that there was water on Mars until very recently. Fortunately, scientists considered the possibility not only real, but nearly certain - and they just demonstrated that they were correct.

>Wave/Particle duality is not something for which there is contradictory evidence . . .

Sure there is. Run tests with a photomultiplier; it will reveal that photons can be described accurately as discrete packets of energy. Then run a test with a diffraction grating. Hey! They almost certainly have to be EM waves! A contradiction!

Fortunately, when scientists were first presented with this contradiction, they did not disregard it. Indeed, they realized (wisely) that they had stumbled on to something very important indeed. Often, that contradictory evidence is not evidence of a contradiction, but evidence of our faulty comprehension of what's really going on.

[billvon 3,120]

>Then what is outside of it's boundaries??

Nothing. Formless, flat, dimensionless nothing. It's like asking what exists right now in the time that tomorrow will take up in 24 hours.

[deibido 0]

Awesome!

Now just devise an experiment to verify the existence of God, then build a device to harness his Holy Power and you have solved the energy crisis!

We can all ride to work in Trinitymobiles.

Are you seriously attempting to correlate scientific advancement with religious fiction as if they are one and the same?

Really?

You seem a lot smarter than that to me.

"User assumes all risk"

[billvon 3,120]

>Now just devise an experiment to verify the existence of God, then build
>a device to harness his Holy Power and you have solved the energy crisis!

Unless it requires piety and humility to draw it down from the heavens. If so, we're all screwed.

>We can all ride to work in Trinitymobiles.

Popemobiles would be more fun. Unless you could get Carrie-Ann Moss to drive, that is.

>Are you seriously attempting to correlate scientific advancement with
>religious fiction as if they are one and the same?

Of course they are not "one and the same." But you started in with observed evidence, reality, contradictions etc - and those terms have meanings that can be used to discuss science or theology.

[deibido 0]

The Wright Brothers, Igor Sikorsky, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison all have one very important thing in common.

They made real things that do not require belief.

I don't have to believe in helicopters, I can ride in them.

Telephones don't require my faith for me to speak on them everyday.

Rockets fly without devotion.

Nuclear weapons will vaporize me without needing any proof that they exist.

"User assumes all risk"

[deibido 0]

those terms have meanings that can be used to discuss science or theology.


Please do.

I have never seen any theological discussion that used scientific principles to do anything other than show that God is imaginary.

I would love to see the opposite.

"User assumes all risk"

[billvon 3,120]

>The Wright Brothers, Igor Sikorsky, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein and
>Thomas Edison all have one very important thing in common.

>They made real things that do not require belief.

You do not require belief to ride in an airplane - but the Wright Brothers required belief that they could solve what seemed to be a long string of insurmountable problems.

When the Wright Brothers started their work, there was no evidence that a powered aircraft existed, or even could exist. Fortunately, they did not think it was meaningless to think it COULD exist - and their belief led them to Kitty Hawk where they proved that it could, indeed, be done.

[deibido 0]

Are suggesting that we build God and then go fly on it?

That would indeed revolutionize this sport.

I'm totally in

But . . .uhhh . . .


you jump the God-achute first.

"User assumes all risk"

[rhys 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To be an atheist, you have to believe there is no God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not really. If you don't believe in a god of some sort, you're an atheist. A-theism=without god. That's all there is to it.

Define God?

[rant]I don't beleive in cristianity, I don't beleive in islam, I don't beleive in any other religion that I have learned of but......

....I do beleive there is a certain 'magic' that makes our matter, matter.

Life is not just atoms and cells forming into place randomly, there is quite obviously some magic involved, call it God if you will but it is not random.

I'm not sure if I am athiest or whatever, but the definition of God is debateable between religions.

As soon as human beings become the centre of a religion....

... that religion is full of crap!!!

We should be repectiong our earth, sun, solar system and universe respectively.

Yet vicars and pirests don't preach about how plastics are from oil and we shouldn't throw them away or use them in the first place do they?

No they talk about moralks of human beings and how we should get along with one another and loads of other stuff, but our poor old earth keeps on getting hammerd by our desire to have the easy life.

[/rant]

So even though I don't blieve in the gods as defined by existing religions, If a New Religion was to emerge that worshipped the earth, sun, solar system and universe respectively or existence was explained without doubt by evidence. Then the term God would be determined once and for all.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Not really. If you don't believe in a god of some sort, you're an atheist. A-theism=without god. That's all there is to it.

Define God?

I consider myself atheist specifically because God is an incoherent and ill-defined concept, it's essentially meaningless. Belief or disbelief in something that has no meaning seems rather pointless to me and is a source of much bemusement.

You say you believe in some sort of "magic" that constitutes matter. But do you know what that magic is, how it does it's thing or what properties it has? If you don't then I have to wonder, do you even know what you believe?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Let's take away the word "belief" and replace it with "assert".

What do you assert?

Assertion 1: There is no god.
Assertion 2: I don't know if there is a god.

Is assertion 2 not closest to the real "truth"?

Assertion 1: You are not a cunningly disguised pumpkin.
Assertion 2: You might be a cunningly diguised pumpkin.

Assertion 1: Nuclear power plants are not run by genies running on hamster wheels.
Assertion 2: Nuclear power plants might be run by genies running on hamster wheels.

Assertion 1: I am not currently playing chess with King Oberon of Faerie, Marvin the Martian and Hades.
Assertion 2: I might be playing chess with King Oberon of Faerie, Marvin the Martian and Hades.


Assertion 2 has no truth to it, it's just pandering to stupid stories.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Hmmm. So the dogmatic belief that your idea of the nonexistence of god is superior than others' dogmatic belief in their idea of the existewnce of god doesn't give you cause to ponder?

Christ is lord. The rest of you are wrong. Prove me wrong.
Allah akbar. The rest of you are wrong. Prove me wrong.
Yahveh is lord. The rest of you are wrong. Prove me wrong.
There is no god. The rest of you are wrong. Prove me wrong.

Seems pretty similar to me. Dogmatic.

Bullshit. There is a fundamental difference in that all of the others have invented a story which they believe and the atheist has not. By your standards anyone that calls bullshit on any story, no matter how absurd, is dogmatic.

Do you think the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm weren't real? Dogmatic. Do you think the supernatural beings in Midsummer Night's dream aren't real? Dogmatic. Do you think that chess game I mentioned isn't happening? Dogmatic. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone who dismisses a made up, unsupportable story is as arrogant as the person who made up the story and wants everyone to believe in it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?