Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority

[Nick]

The thing is, I don't believe in any God the popular religions try and sell me, equally I can't sit with certainty like some of you that there DEFINATELY isn't, I do know life is a pretty magical experience, and without hedging my bets I am being infinitely more realistic than some fundamentalist christian or atheist by saying I don't have a fucking clue and never will.

You are against religion, they are for it, others prefer to just not profess to be so sure about something as universally massive as the very prospect of god.

Still, a lot of people ego's are getting to that size on this thread now so maybe we will have a new messiah to light the way any second.

[Tuddi2]

As far as Athiests go...I really, REALLY wonder how many people on this earth have actually been in a foxhole with artillery falling all around them have actually held onto the idea that there is no god during this time. I'm not say they has not been one...but very, very few.

pretty sure you're right on this, the % of ppl not believing in a higher beeing is probably less if you only ask those that have spent time in a foxhole.

but that tells you what, that when you're scared of dieing, and the basic thought of "what will it be like to be dead" enters your mind, you have a need to think there is something after to hold on to or you'd have a higher risk of losing your mind from stress/pressure.

so when faced with something life threatening we'll have a need to think this isn't the end.

how far back from the "i am scared for my life", can you go to explain the difference of mindsets between those that do believe in some sort of god, and those that dont.

[Xyun]

Still, a lot of people ego's are getting to that size on this thread now so maybe we will have a new messiah to light the way any second.

Thanks for the intro.



There is no god.


I'll be back in 2000 years.


that is all.

[Winnow]

So why the attitude towards agnostics? I'm happy to discuss religion with anyone. If they can convince me that they're right, cool! I'll find out I was wrong all along. But you seem to disregard agnostics as pussied fence-sitters - an attitude that's just as revolting and fanatical as that of the people you like to point fingers at.

Agnostics get off easy in these debates most of the time so I figured I'd stir the pot!

IMO, the definition for agnostic is a little too broad.

agnostic:

-Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

-A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

Atheist

-Someone who denies the existence of god

This definition has the atheist denying the existence of god (little g).

god (little g) is defined as:

-Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

-A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people

-A material effigy that is worshipped

Big G God:

-The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

With the above definition of god, I'm comfortable calling myself an atheist. There very well be something out there in the form of a higher intelligence that designed us, etc but I'm confident it itsn't in the form of any legends/religious manifistations that are currently worshipped.

I tend to lean toward the "Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something" definition of an Agnostic when being critical. That an agnostic doesn't outright deny the existence of God (big G) is acceptable in the same way Suevan's 1% chance of rain is acceptable, but not practical. My issue with some individuals calling themselves agnostic is the "just in casers". I'd be a little more comfortable with the little g god definition for an agnostic and openess to the possibility something, but not understood as of yet, "force or entity".

In the end, it's not a big deal between the two but the definitions are a little sketchy imo.

[Zaelath]

Proof god exists, caught on tape! http://www.fungod.com/coppermine/displa ... 19&pos=218

[kyoukan]

mmm pointed at the top for ease of penetration

SO HUNGRY

[Hesten]

Proof god exists, caught on tape! http://www.fungod.com/coppermine/displa ... 19&pos=218

Ok, im sold, there IS a god

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Proof god exists, caught on tape! http://www.fungod.com/coppermine/displa ... 19&pos=218

Yeah, nevermind. I'm a believer now.

[Sueven]

My sole point has been that there is a clear distinction between belief and knowledge. My only problem is people claiming to know something they are not privy to.

Would you please make this distinction? Based on what you've said so far, you sound to me like the sort of person who would deny the existence of knowledge and assert that all is belief. I'm curious as to what exactly you consider knowledge to be.

[Niffoni]

As someone who has faith, that video is utterly humiliating.

I'd like to see a Christain honestly try to use that retarded argument that ONE food on the face of the earth is easy to eat.

You'd get pelted with Oranges.

When chickens pluck themselves and march single-file towards my oven, call me.

P.S. I'm sure all that stuff has NOTHING to do with the scientifically proven mathematical consistancies that appear in nature.

[Lynks]

Monkeys love bananas too so right there is proof of evolution. Man and monkey have the same descendants! (Banana lovin folk)

[Marbus]

Proof...

From Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas

Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:
Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.
But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.
In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.
To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.
To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.
To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.

Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.
My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.



Now that we all understand that... lets move on

Marb

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Marb,

I take it you are non-religious too then? Certainly that was a post of sarcasm. You could not have been serial.

[Marbus]

Sarcastic? Yes but also very religious...

My point is that yes you can prove the existence of God philosophically and logically. But truthfully what does that buy us? If that is what someone needs to show them God exists then I guess that's great... but it's of little consequence to me. (but it is better than the Banana!)

I know God exists and I know He interacts with humanity constantly. Like some of the crispies I can't tell you exactly why though. I can recite what even most Dr.s would consider to be medical maricles but for those who refuse to consider the possibility or who had been strongly negatively effected psychologically they can be refuted enough to produce the doubt needed.

It doesn't really matter how intelligent you are, what social class you are, race or anything else. There are people from every group who believe and people from every group who don't. Hell look at what so many of the at least moderately intelligent people in Hollywood belive - Scientology (even though L. Ron Hubbard dreamed it up and SAID he was going to be fore he did it).

I believe. I used to call myself a Follower of Christ and as I get older and see more and more of what organized religious does to society I like the phrase better and better as often, even for myself, even though I must love my brothers and sisters in Christ, the word Christian somehow brings up negative feelings. I know the reason... it's because Christian usually denotes Fundamentalist zealots whom often seem to be far from following the 4 letters on their bracelet...

Marb

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Sarcastic? Yes but also very religious...

My point is that yes you can prove the existence of God philosophically and logically. But truthfully what does that buy us? If that is what someone needs to show them God exists then I guess that's great... but it's of little consequence to me. (but it is better than the Banana!)

I know God exists and I know He interacts with humanity constantly. Like some of the crispies I can't tell you exactly why though. I can recite what even most Dr.s would consider to be medical maricles but for those who refuse to consider the possibility or who had been strongly negatively effected psychologically they can be refuted enough to produce the doubt needed.

It doesn't really matter how intelligent you are, what social class you are, race or anything else. There are people from every group who believe and people from every group who don't. Hell look at what so many of the at least moderately intelligent people in Hollywood belive - Scientology (even though L. Ron Hubbard dreamed it up and SAID he was going to be fore he did it).

I believe. I used to call myself a Follower of Christ and as I get older and see more and more of what organized religious does to society I like the phrase better and better as often, even for myself, even though I must love my brothers and sisters in Christ, the word Christian somehow brings up negative feelings. I know the reason... it's because Christian usually denotes Fundamentalist zealots whom often seem to be far from following the 4 letters on their bracelet...

Marb

Oh.

[Winnow]

I know God exists and I know He interacts with humanity constantly. Like some of the crispies I can't tell you exactly why though.
It doesn't really matter how intelligent you are, what social class you are, race or anything else.

Blind faith like that is the cause for all the shittiness in the world today. If some sacred scriptures were uncovered revealing that followers of Christ should be suicide bombers, what would stop you from being first in line? I'm guessing not much. No questions asked.

There are people from every group who believe and people from every group who don't. Hell look at what so many of the at least moderately intelligent people in Hollywood belive - Scientology (even though L. Ron Hubbard dreamed it up and SAID he was going to be fore he did it).

You just made your own point that people are gullable...you just don't realize that your faith is exactly the same as all the other ones which are equally bogus.

Like smoking cigarettes, it's hard to break someone from a bad religious habit. People want to belong to a group. You can remain all lonely in your house or join a church where people are guaranteed to like you...especially when the collection plate gets passed around.

There's this one kook I work with that goes through wives like we go through MMORPGs. He picks up his wives so easily off his church's match making service. "You both love Jesus! It's a match"

The next time you think you know God exists, go to Las Vegas...you'll see a lot of people who think they know the roulette ball is going to fall in a black slot or the next card it going to be an ace...gamblers and religious people have a lot in common.

I'm sick of religious people saying "oh, im not like that. That's the OTHER religious people" Sorry, you're just like that and it's fucking up our world. Blind faith is the commonality.

[Sueven]

My point is that yes you can prove the existence of God philosophically and logically.

No you can't. The fact that some philosopher wrote it does not mean that he was right. Descartes wrote a proof for God which basically proceeded as follows:

1. Everything has both objective and subjective reality. Objective reality is the actual existence of that thing (for instance, a chair), while subjective reality is something along the lines of our knowledge and understanding of the existence of that thing (for instance, our mental image of a chair).

2. Nothing can have more subjective reality than objective reality. That is to say, it would make no sense to have a chair that was more than what our concept of a chair entails; it would be some other piece of furniture which we would have to have an idea of.

3. God has subjective reality because we can think about him and have a mental picture of who he is and what he does.

4. God, like anything else, must have at least as much objective reality as subjective reality, and because he does have subjective reality, he therefore exists. QED.

I'm sure you can see that this proof is self-evidently wrong (and please no one bitch to me about my butchering of Descartes, I'm not going to get him exactly right off the top of my head, but the gist is correct).

If you like, I can talk to a few people and find you a good scholarly argument which purports to demonstrate that Aquinas did not, in fact, prove what he believed he proved, either philosophically or logically. You could then dispute this refutation, but simply posting a claim made by a philospher does not constitute 'proof' for anything. Philosophers have 'proved' a variety of really absurd and obviously wrong facts about the universe (for instance, the Earth does not rotate because, when you throw a rock in the air, it comes down in the same place and not, say, 20 feet to the left).

[Marbus]

You missed the point... I'm not saying it's 100% correct, I'm saying that those are out there as well.

However Winnow is totally off base in lumping all people who believe in God as cooks. That's just as much bullshit as the whole basis of this thread - people being scare of athiest. Hell one of my closest teachers in HS was an athiest, he had his beliefs about religion, I had mine but we were both existentialist in how we approached life. And yes I have questioned, I questioned a great deal for many years and I still question on a daily basis to gain greater understanding. But I do not question the existence of God. Not because of some proof from a philosopher, not because of some minister, not because of some book but because of what I have experienced, both good and bad in my life and what I see in the world around me, and "feel/know" in my heart.

Win you need to look up the definition of fundamentalism which was one of the main points of my post. THAT IS THE PROBLEM in the world, not religion. You can be religious, believe in God, and believe that everyone else has the same rights that you do. However when you cross the line to fundamentalism, regardless of religion or not (could be Nationalistic instead) you begin to case problems, starting with others people's freedoms.

Lets look at what Jesus taught. Did he tell anyone that they couldn't associate with other people based upon color, race, creed or religious belief? Nope (the Church did though). Did Jesus subjugate women or treat them equally in his ministry? (equally - but the Church didn't) Did Jesus talk of peace for all people and forgiveness to each other promoting community? Yes but once again the Church didn't... why? Power...

If the world ACTUALLY follow the teachings of Christ, from what HE said as quotes (not necessarily what is in the rest of the Cannon), this world would be a utopia.

But as you and I know people crave power and with power usually comes corruption. If there was an athiest movement that was eventually treated as something to "believe in" it too would be corrupted because of us. Fundamentalist take that corruption a step farther in that if you aren't with them... you are against them. There is only black or white.

Look at Islam. Are there any smart moderate Islamic terrorists? Of course not because they actually read the book rather than listening to some power hungry Cleric who craves the power his strict fundamentalist teachings give him over his followers. Hell look at Jim Jones in America, WACO, the "Prophets" in America... those guys aren't looking for God, those guys are just using the gullibility of the average idiot to gain power. Just like our illustrious President has done to the fundies and the paranoid the past 6 years...

It's no different...

My point is that it's not religion that is causing us issues, it's an unwavering fundamentalist belief in anything that causes the problem. Some of those people are indeed Religious, but some are not.

Marb

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

However Winnow is totally off base in lumping all people who believe in God as cooks.

My wife is religious and she can't cook for shit.

[Kilrain]

Well, this thread is filled with nothing but a bunch of people debating on who believes in god less. At least you all concur on one thing... you believe!

What an utter waste of 14 minutes.

[Markulas]

Creed's breakup proves god's existence.

And another thing, if an agnostic doesn't believe in an afterlife whatsoever, but believes something (whether it be god, xenu, or some natural force) happened to have us here that is entirely unprovable be afraid of going to hell?

[Chidoro]

However Winnow is totally off base in lumping all people who believe in God as cooks.

My wife is religious and she can't cook for shit.

[vn_Tanc]

"Just because science can't give you all the answers doesn't mean a 1500-yr old pamphlet can".

[Jice Virago]

Women and Religeon. Two things no amount of logic will help you argue against.

[Kaldaur]

Well, I was doing some thinking on my way back from the bank this afternoon about the argument of weather and its implications for agnosticism. It was raining, so that's what clued me in. I read a weather report today that told me there was a good chance it was going to rain. Was I going to discount this report and figure I have no way of figuring it out on my own, so I'm not going to try? No, of course not. If the weather people think it's going to rain, there's a good chance it will. Not a 100 percent chance, but a decent one. So I began to think, why do I accept their knowledge?
Weather reporters base their predictions upon empirical research. This research includes what's coming from the west, high or low pressure areas, and the like. But how did they accumulate this knowledge? They went to school to obtain it, or in the case of non-meteorologists were hired to spew back what they see on a card. Where did this knowledge come from? Previous generations of people who studied the weather and saw similarities in what happened. If it clouded up, it was more likely to rain than shine. If it was cold and began to cloud up, we may get snow over rain. This is a very simplified way to describe the process of weather, but as you all know how it works, I'll assume a general knowledge.
Past study by humans has accounted for our weather knowledge. We know it may rain because this same weather pattern has happened for generations upon generations, and after we leave the world, it will continue to rain under these circumstances. Past accumulated human experience and knowledge tells us these things.


Allow me to switch tracks for a second. Let's consider dinosaur fossils. How many of us have seen a dinosaur walk? How many have seen a predator dino devour a weaker one? I can count the number of us that have on zero fingers. So how do we assume a knowledge of how dinosaurs ate, walked, and lived? By studying their bone structure we learn things about them. We've learned that a type of bone around the foot has a certain function for walking. Why do we know this? Because of past human experience studying other skeletal structures of creatures that we can observe, such as a bird. There are many similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and due to this scientists have made assumptions about dinosaurs that we accept as generally true, because we have empirical evidence in the form of bird structures. With this evidence, we assume things about the dinosaurs. We make assumptions based on past gathered evidence that other human beings have seen.


With that in mind, can anyone tell me how much accumulated knowledge human beings have in studying a non-corporeal being? How much knowledge and ability do we have to study life from outside this solar system? Because we don't have any knowledge at this point, does that mean there is no other life in this galaxy? Because we don't have the ability to step foot and gather fossil samples from other planets, does that mean plant life most certainly does not exist on other planets? We have no knowledge to tell us that they do, so by the arguments of atheists there exists no plant life on other planets.

By extension, this argument applies to a deity. Because we have no accumulated human knowledge or studies about it where we have witnessed an omnipotent being or proven it's existence, it does not exist according to atheists. Yet there is much about the universe for which we have no working information. Because we do not, does that mean it (being whatever still lies out there to be discovered) doesn't exist? Does it magically appear as soon as we discover it? Or had it always been there, and we had not possessed the capabilities to decipher it?

I am not arguing for the belief in a deity or the rejection of one. I am saying that there is a universe out there that we have only touched our big toe in and found the water cold. To assume we generally understand everything that can be out there without any basis of knowledge or supposition save your own internal dialogue and beliefs is foolish and rejects the knowledge humanity has been creating since Aristotle and before. I am saying that there may or may not be a god, but because we have no basis for knowledge or past experience to measure such an existence, we can't say for sure.

Now, you may say that there are a great deal of things we cannot prove, such as the existence of some great monster at the center of the earth or the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Here is where my argument gets a little weaker, as I haven't thought this whole thing out yet. But we have a general idea of what exists at the center of our planet based on tectonic studies and a knowledge of how other planets are formed and destroyed. By studying other planets, we have gained a knowledge of the core of a planet and how it is created using hydrogen and helium. As for the Tooth Fairy, we know that it is indeed our parents who came and took our tooths and not a magical fairy. We know this because our parents would tell us when we grew up. The same goes for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the rest of our fictional characters. They were cultural creations by adults to instill a sense of wonder in children, but when questioned the parents tell us that they were in fact the ones that left presents, and not a man in a big red coat.

But Kal, you say, based on your argument, you can't discount the existence of a Tooth Fairy just because she never collected a tooth at your house or anyone elses house. This is true, but we are only talking about collected human evidence, and because we know that it is our parents who collect the tooths and not a fairy, her existence as a Tooth Fairy is doubted. There are no blacks or whites in my argument. There is no completely true assertion or something that completely doesn't exist. But isn't that how knowledge and "truth" work? Many things have been "true" throughout history, and as our knowledge expands we find some of those truths were correct and others were misguided. As human knowledge expands, we learn more things about our existence, even if some of that knowledge means discounting previous information. As for a deity? I think that at our current state of existence, we don't have the capacity to determine whether or not a god does or does not exist because we have no human knowledge to say one way or the other. I don't know if we ever will. Which is why our great great great great grandchildren will be discussing this very same topic.

Summing it up, this is something I threw together in a ten minute walk back from the bank. If it has holes, please try to show me them, because I'd like to work this out further. I can generally trust a good response here, even if its laced with flames. Hope this helps to show what I perceive as an agnostic.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

How stoned were you when you wrote that?

As human knowledge expands, we learn more things about our existence, even if some of that knowledge means discounting previous information. As for a deity? I think that at our current state of existence, we don't have the capacity to determine whether or not a god does or does not exist because we have no human knowledge to say one way or the other. I don't know if we ever will. Which is why our great great great great grandchildren will be discussing this very same topic.

I respect your opinion on this though. It makes sense. I personally have no problem not believing in magic at this point in time.

[Fash]

Because we don't have the ability to step foot and gather fossil samples from other planets, does that mean plant life most certainly does not exist on other planets? We have no knowledge to tell us that they do, so by the arguments of atheists there exists no plant life on other planets.

This is retarded and completely inaccurate.

I am an atheist and can tell you without a doubt that plant and animal life exists outside of our solar system.

[Kaldaur]

Ok. If it's retarded, tell me why, instead of just leaving it at that. How do you know without a doubt?

[Fash]

Because it's equally retarded to think that Earth with 1,200,000,000 species living in every extreme environmental situation is the only planet with life out of all the planets around the 200,000,000,000 stars JUST IN OUR GALAXY.

[Kaldaur]

Ok, I wasn't disagreeing with that, I was just following the logic of the atheists on this board. If you can deduce through reasoning that because the galaxy is so big, there must be life on other planets, why can't you deduce through reasoning that there may be an omnipotent being who created life. After all, there are 1,200,000,000 species on earth, and that's just one planet out of 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Don't you think it's arrogant to say for a fact that no omnipotent being exists, yet there has to be life out there similar to us?

[Zaelath]

Ok, I wasn't disagreeing with that, I was just following the logic of the atheists on this board. If you can deduce through reasoning that because the galaxy is so big, there must be life on other planets, why can't you deduce through reasoning that there may be an omnipotent being who created life. After all, there are 1,200,000,000 species on earth, and that's just one planet out of 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Don't you think it's arrogant to say for a fact that no omnipotent being exists, yet there has to be life out there similar to us?

Because that's a cyclic argument; if you require a being to create something as endlessly complex as the universe, what creates the being? It goes no where, it's not a "rational" extrapolation of knowledge we have.

Life on other planets *is* an extension of current knowledge, we see life form in very different ways on just this planet. We know basically what the base requirements are to support life. We know roughly the chances of similar requirements existing in other solar systems in the galaxy, etc, such that the odds of their being life on other planets is much greater than not.

[Fash]

omnipotent is a word and concept entirely created by humans. there is no reason to think such a thing actually exists in reality... there is no everlasting gobstopper either.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

omnipotent is a word and concept entirely created by humans. there is no reason to think such a thing actually exists in reality... there is no everlasting gobstopper either.

Liar!

[Kaldaur]

Ok, I'm seeing how that proving the non-existence of some intangible being is just as impossible as proving the existence of a being that no one has ever seen. You can't prove to me that he doesn't exist, and a man of God can't prove to me that he does. The only difference is, we've all taken different mindsets to what this lack of proof shows. Some think it shows he does exist, some say he doesn't exist, and others don't want to make up their mind. So, let's just agree to disagree.

P.S. Thanks for the replies, your arguments have helped me hone mine, not to mention see a lot of sides on this issue. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that Americans have nothing to fear from atheists. It's those Greeks they need to worry about.

Fucking Greeks.

[Niffoni]

I'm Afraid of Americans!

[Sueven]

Ok, I'm seeing how that proving the non-existence of some intangible being is just as impossible as proving the existence of a being that no one has ever seen. You can't prove to me that he doesn't exist, and a man of God can't prove to me that he does. The only difference is, we've all taken different mindsets to what this lack of proof shows. Some think it shows he does exist, some say he doesn't exist, and others don't want to make up their mind. So, let's just agree to disagree.

You're not considering probabilities. The concept of God is structured in a way that makes it impossible to logically prove or disprove, but that doesn't mean that we can't consider how likely it is that God exists. You can look at all the possible arguments for and against God and decide which of the two sides appears more likely to be correct. Personally, I figure that the probability of the Abrahamic God's existence is extremely low. Perhaps you think otherwise, that's up to you and subject to a host of other discussions, but the fact that God can't be conclusively proven or disproven doesn't mean there's nothing useful or persuasive that we can say about the concept.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Ok, I'm seeing how that proving the non-existence of some intangible being is just as impossible as proving the existence of a being that no one has ever seen. You can't prove to me that he doesn't exist, and a man of God can't prove to me that he does. The only difference is, we've all taken different mindsets to what this lack of proof shows. Some think it shows he does exist, some say he doesn't exist, and others don't want to make up their mind. So, let's just agree to disagree.

P.S. Thanks for the replies, your arguments have helped me hone mine, not to mention see a lot of sides on this issue. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that Americans have nothing to fear from atheists. It's those Greeks they need to worry about.

Fucking Greeks.

Show me one piece of evidence in the last 300 years of the existence of any magic of any kind. You don't have any. There is no magic, there is no God.

[kyoukan]

well a woman with down's syndrome and an orangutang managed to conceive you. if that isn't magic then science has failed us all horribly.

[Kaldaur]

That was my entire point, Midnyte, and the point that Fash made. Just because there doesn't exist proof to this day doesn't mean that proof doesn't exist somewhere. Fash said it himself, just because we don't have proof that plant life on other planets doesn't mean that there are no plants on other worlds. That was my point, so you're agreeing with me. I wasn't saying there was a deity, I was just pointing out we have no way of knowing, with no proof on either side to back up their claims of faith.

[Sueven]

There might not be proof but there is plenty of evidence.

[Kaldaur]

Ok, so tell me what this evidence is.

[Zaelath]

I just wanna know why God retired, and why he's such a piss poor manager, and why he would feel the need to have Jesus die for our sins; he makes the rules and yet he decides to exploit a loop-hole? WTF?

It definitely shows something about your psyche if you're willing to believe that once you die that's it. It's very comforting to most people to believe there's an afterlife, that what you do in your lifetime really matters, and that bad people will get their just desserts. That last is a biggie... every religion has some take on it, from Heaven and Hell to Karma and reincarnation.

I think the distrust (which the topic of this thread refers to) is because Athiests "know" that they can fuck people over, lie, cheat, steal, kill, whatever and unless they get caught in this life, they win. Doesn't mean they will all do these things, just as claiming to be Christian doesn't mean you won't, but I follow the reasoning somewhat.

[Sueven]

The evidence is simply the sum total of all arguments for or against religion, whether philosophical or cultural or biological or what. Think about what we know about people and their beliefs, religion and religious behavior, how religion has acted throughout world history and so on, the logical coherency or arguments for God, and so on. This is meaningful evidence, even if it's not conclusive.

[Kaldaur]

Aristotle said the heavens was made up of aether, and the entire world agreed with him. Just because our "collected sum of knowledge" is speech and written word for a great deal of time doesn't make it true.

[Kelgar]

Sounds like someone's taking or has recently taken a college philosophy class.

Word of advice:

Try not to get stuck on arguing semantics, defining and redefining parameters, or plain old sophistry. Most people here are smart enough to realize that it's nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation.

[Kaldaur]

That's exactly it. Thanks for the input dad.

I'm seriously just trying to figure out what kind of evidence we have to assert that he does or doesn't exist.

[Zaelath]

Duh! The banana, we covered that already

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Duh! The banana, we covered that already

rofl

[Deward]

I call myself an agnostic for lack of a better word. I definitely believe in the chance of something smarter and more powerful than us out in the universe. If a smart person from today were to travel back in time to the Bronze age they might very well be considered a god. How would a bronze age person react if a more modern being pulled out a gun and shot someone? Just look at how far the human race has come in just the past 100 years. Look at the difference in athletes alone in that time frame. Now imagine a 1000 years from now.

I believe that if there is a "God" out there, he is by no means omnipotent. At best, we are probably his (or hers) science experiment. I picture that Far Side cartoon showing a pimply teenager looking down at the earth. After a while he probably got bored and left. If there is a God then I say fuck him. What has he done to alleviate human suffering? Why do bad things happen to good people?

[Marbus]

Wasn't there a TNG episode like that?