The Glade 4.0

But what you are declaring is agnosticism or even possibly a form of deism. Remember, deism rejects many or all organized religions as well. Hence why many people today aren't religious, but still believe in a higher power.

When I think of atheism, I think of people who deny the existence of a divine being on the basis that it is not possible that such a being could exist. I used to know a few of them. They were fervent in their disbelief of a higher power. In fact, they were as fervent in their disbelief as Beryllin was in his belief. And many of them wanted to convince of that fact.

I'm going a little off-tangent here, but be careful of the difference between evidence and proof, as Khross pointed out. Evidence is any type of data that links to an idea, hypothesis, theory, law, etc. It doesn't even need to be true. If it's used to support the idea, then it's called proof. For instance, I see rain droplets. That's evidence. I see rain droplets, therefore it must be raining. That's an attempt to use it into proof. But you'd need more evidence to determine that either way. Going outside the door and getting wet would be greater proof and another piece of evidence, but if it's sunny out that's evidence that disproves the hypothesis.

Then I submit that I don't care that much anymore. I don't believe in the difference!

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Ienan, you are still missing the mark. Many of you presume that the default state, the baseline, is faith. That anything that deviates from faith is also faith.

It's very similar to how conservatives often project racism on to groups like the NAACP.

Look, it takes exactly zero faith for a person to observe a lack of evidence, and a startling amount of evidence to the contrary, and draw a rational conclusion about the various deities our species has created. That is not an act of faith.

It is an act of faith to look at the aforementioned lack of evidence in support, and overwhelming evidence against, and still hold on to the belief.

But faith in a specific deity is what separates theism from atheism. They are not the same thing. It does not take faith to be an Atheist. It simply takes rational thought. It takes irrational thought to be a theist.

There is nothing wrong with that, but trying to draw a parallel between the two fails. Atheism is not a religion. Religion requires a deity, which atheism rejects. Not a god-concept, but an actual deity.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

At the end does it really matter if you agree with each other on the exact definition, as long as you understand the other person's position?

No matter how wrong they might be.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

See here, you go all wonky right off the bat.

Religion is the answer, "Where did we come from" was the question.

The primary characteristic of the single deity type religions is that the deity under consideration is "The Creator of All".

Pretty much impossible to debunk unless you make **** up. "All" is obviously here, so it's been created, and absolutely nobody has debunked that there was supernatural oversight in the creation process.

Atheists insist that **** just appeared without any oversight. The deity they worship is a pair of dice with no intelligence. I'd argue that it's still a deity...especially for those atheists referenced in the first post of this thread. The "big freaking random number generator in the sky" is their God and they have none before Him.

Right there is the crux of the entire argument, and there is absolutely NO evidence that supports one position over the other.

At that point, the atheist might go all Occam and the pious might argue how creation is contrary to entropy, but those just argue the logistics of the situation they've decided they want to espouse, they don't provide any evidence forwarding one core belief over the other.

"Who's your Daddy"? <- If you have an answer to that you're religious by definition. If you don't, you're agnostic.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, we all presume the default state is ignorance; that is, we all presume the default state is the state of not knowing.

_________________

Exactly. Once you pick an answer to "where did it all come from, what is the source of creation?" you've picked a religion, and there's nothing that supports that decision other than faith. 'Till then you're agnostic.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I don't know where we came from or what you're all talking about.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Yes, and you've elevated that ignorance to a religion where you're the grand-poobah.

Congratulations! It's a tax haven!

You - *AGNOSTIC*

Me - God bless you.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I've always wanted to start a cult. /fistpump

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I think you'd make for a very benevolent diety.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

My commandment would be "Seriously, don't be a dick."

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

And that's where you went wonky. Religion is not *the* answer. It is *an* answer. An answer that lacks any evidence at all. Hence the reason why it takes a leap of faith to believe in that answer.



Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Just because it's here does not mean it's created. It is not incumbent on people like me to *disprove* the contention that some being created the universe. It is the obligation of those asserting that such a deity does exist to provide objective evidence of his existence.



No, Atheists insist that there is no evidence to support the existence of some sort of all powerful overseer.



You could argue that, but you would be wrong.

Khross - I agree that the default state is ignorance. Ignorance is cured by knowledge. Knowledge is gained by observation, testing, and rational thought based on the evidence at hand. When man first saw thunder, he had no explanation. So he devised one. Reason, evidence, and rational thought brings us out of the dark and into better understanding. The belief that there is some omnipotent power waiting patiently in the heavens is no different than the belief that Prometheus brought fire to man. People in our history believed that myth with all their hearts, with equal fervor to the fundamentalists of today.

Evidence changed our minds. Now that deity, that mystical being, is merely a myth. We teach it not as a truth, but as a story. An allegory.

When we look at the long history of mankind, which is but a blip in the entire history of our universe, we can see countless gods and goddesses rise and fall. Each of these deities were worshiped with as much faith as our current crop of mystical overlords. THe faithful of today have nothing on the Aztecs, who sacrificed human beings to their gods. Modern christians would look upon that as a barbaric practice of a primitive people.

And so too will future generations look upon the faux blood rites of the catholic church, or the adult baptism rituals in protestant congregations. They will look at our Christmas feasts and our marriage rites with a bemused eye. We're a drop in the bucket.

And we have no objective proof that god exists in any form that we describe. No proof. None what so ever. The rational choice is to simply reject the notion entirely until Objective evidence reveals itself.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The core of all religions is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. If you believe you know, you're following a religion 'cause that's what it says religion means. If you don't, apparently you're agnostic 'cause that what it says THAT means. I'm just the messenger, I didn't make up the meanings, so disagree with Funk & Wagnalls, not me.

Wow. "Just because it's here does not mean it's created". Wow. I don't even know how to answer that. I just … wow. Physical stuff is here. Arguing that stuff can be here without being created is … stupid. Something brought stuff into existence... even if it was a random event, then a random event brought it into existence.

This is why you're always accused of being an idiot, just in case you're wondering. You say stupid stuff, REALLY stupid stuff, then you build on the stupid stuff you say and think you've got something of value to defend. I mean, yeah, you want to depreciate the possibility of a creator so you don't like the word "created", but to argue that stuff wasn't created ... Do you ever actually TRY to understand what words mean, other than the word "No"?


I'm sure you could go to great lengths explaining exactly what you mean, but all I see is you just wanting to disagree so you just say "No" then follow it up with agreeing.


Now, that just stings. But, since you're defending your god, I understand your investment in the argument and will forgive you.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You know Monte, I can tell you're trying to work within this community. I really can. You're trying hard not to sling insults around and all...

But this conversation is a perfect example of where things fall apart for you. You put absolutely NO effort into your arguments, you barely read what others post, then you just say "No" followed by blithering that shows you made no effort to understand the meaning and intent of the post you're replying to, and that's FREAKING INSULTING.

Put some effort in! Look up meanings of things, 'cause you redefine words all out of the shape they were meant to be in, they way they were meant to convey information, and your arguments look like crap because of it.

I looked up the definition and meaning of the word "religion" a half dozen times in the course of this thread, and the word "agnostic", "atheism", "deity", "creator" and several others. I spell check my posts via Firefox spell checker. I re-read them for context and continuity. I read the wiki's on the topics, I PUT FREAKING EFFORT IN. You - obviously - did none of that, and when I say "obviously" I SO mean what the definition of the word means.

When you start doing at least SOME of these things, your reputation will increase. Try it. Respect those you argue with at least a little and put some effort in. Or not, but don't whine about how you're treated when you disrespect those you try to communicate with.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Psst.. Taskiss,

Monte doesn't need to look up definitions of words. He's quite adept as creating his own (definitions), and this serves hes purpose much more effectively.

Remember!
If the President is from your party and says on national television that using the dictionary is "Stretching it a bit," you don't have to use one either.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

To be fair, DFK!, this isn't something new which President Obama put into motion. American Liberalism has been dependant on the mutability of language to enact policy and make law for atleast 150 years. Probably longer, as the very idea of the Constitution as "a living document" is completely dependant on it.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Oh, I'm aware. But as you yourself said in your PM, acknowledging that would undermine my joke.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So, I'm having a perfectly normal, non inflammatory conversation about religion. I make a few points, and suddenly not only is it time to attack me, but liberalism in general. Funny that. You guys are like angry dogs snapping your chains. Seriously, take a step back.

Taskiss - it is illogical to assume that because something exists, it was *created* by some ultrapowerful being.

The burden of proof rests on the faithful, not those who see this reality and draw a rational conclusion. It's not stupid to demand evidence of some supreme being, *especially* if people are trying to make other people live according to that deity's rules.

Religious person A - "God exists. He created the heavens and the earth. The universe revolves around the Earth. There is a barrier that holds in the sky called the firmament. When god wants a flood, he opens little portals in that barrier and lets the water in. That's why the sky is blue."

Person B: "Well, I observe we have sent a man to the moon. There was no barrier, and beyond our atmosphere, which we have seen and measured, there is empty space. What evidence do you have that this planet was created by this all powerful being you worship? What evidence do you have that we were created as man and woman out of whole cloth?"

"Well, it says it right here in this holy book"

"This holy book also claims that people lived to be thousands of years old, that a single person was able to fit 2 of every animal onto a boat and survive a global flood, that a man was able to raise people from the dead and turn water into wine - it reads like a carnival snake oil salesman's pitch."

"INFIDEL"!!!! **stab**

There is no evidence that a deity exists. There is plenty of evidence that the claims in the holy books that religions promote are utter bullshit, though.

So, when I look at the evidence, I see zero objective evidence of a god, as described by any of the religions currently practiced. I see no evidence of Jesus. I see no evidence of Thetans. I see no evidence of titans or thunder gods or of Allah's divinity. I see no evidence of a Goddess. I see no evidence of the Buddah..

In order to accept that any of those things are true, I must take a leap of faith. I must believe in them in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

So, do you see how it takes no faith to be an Atheist? It takes only a rational observation of available evidence. I am not saying that the existence of a deity can not be known. If I was saying that, I would be an Agnostic. I am saying that there is no objective evidence to back up the claims of faithful people, and plenty of evidence in contrary to their assertions.

And as a result, it's easy to conclude that, unless some objective piece of evidence shows itself, there is no god.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

A burden of proof rests on anyone who makes an assertion, not just those who assert something you disagree with. The existence of a supreme being is unknown and as of yet unknowable, assertion that there is a God needs faith because there is no proof, assertion that there isn't a God requires that same proof. You can't have a conclusion 'till you pick a position, and since there is no proof either way, you have to trust without proof... which is what faith is.

Atheists insist there is no God, it's the agnostic that says there is way to tell because there is and can be no proof.

THAT'S EXACTLY the point I was making when I suggested you read the definition of things. Spend some time and get on the same page as those who publish the dictionary, then we will have common ground for the discussion.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Except what you are describing would be anti-religion, in this case, structured around a specific set of beliefs. That is not what atheism is. Atheism purports that any supernatural presence cannot exist. There is no evidence, let alone proof, in this regard.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Aside from the fact that his person A is a total strawman of all but the tiniest fraction of religious people, look carefully at what he says, especially that parts I underlined.

He is trying to discredit religious writings as evidence of the supernatural based on the fact that they recount the supernatural. Yes, that book claims those things, because the God that is responsible for them happening is what it is trying to talk about.

Now look at his last part, after the hyphen. He is offering his own incredulity as an attempt to discredit the stories mentioned in the earlier underlined part.

This is the crux of the problem - "There is nothing supernatural/There is no God/<insert preferred phraseology here>" is a conclusion. You cannot use the assumption or premise that it does not exist as a starting point, but that's what he's trying to do. The entire position is a circular argument.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Montegue: Do you believe that a divine creator set the Big Bang in motion? A yes or no will suffice.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Show me where something I've said is an attack, as opposed to an apt charaterization. Remember, the word "attack" means something specific. Unless you are relying on the mutab... oh wait...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20