Religulous

[Zalius]

i spy with my little eye a bunch of people that dont smoke enough weed

[quannum]

However, if you want to attack this particular belief or make any comment about it, you will necessarilly assume that something else is true. In this scenario, being an atheist don't allow you to say anything about the theism case.

the positive statements made by theistic can be attacked by anyone (i believe god is good). the position that the attacker holds is irrelevant. there's no need to assume that the loaded premise is true of false, merely point out the assumption and continue on.

[Cow_k]

Belief is a light switch, it's on or it's off. You can't half believe something. You're a theist or an Atheist. Agnostic or Gnostic says nothing of your belief.

Except belief isn't anything at all like a light switch and you're completely wrong. It's always made me mad when someone's tried to lump me into one group or the other. Did you actually bother to read my example I posted earlier? An agnostic doesn't disbelieve the existence of God or Gods or whatever you want to call it and they don't believe either. They don't even belong in the argument because they have no stance on the subject. In order for it to be so simple as on and off as you say, there'd have to be definite proof that one way or the other is fact, and there isn't. As such, both theism and atheism work on the principals of faith. An atheist has faith there is no great power at work in the universe, a theist does. It's that simple. An agnostic doesn't not believe in either, they have no freaking clue and as such don't follow either theories.

That's right, atheism and theism are just theories as to the origins and overall structure of our universe, but neither of them have any scientific proof and to think otherwise is idiotic.

As for unicorns etc.? For all we know, somewhere in the universe unicorns do exist or maybe somewhere in the long past billions of years before we first even appeared dragons flew through space. We have no idea and to state that you know for a fact that that wasn't ever possible is indeed close-minded. If you really want to get philosophical, no one else around you may even physically exist at all. Everything we know may be a complete lie fabricated by some unknown force (Hello the Matrix). It's depressing to think of the universe that way and as far as we know, unlikely so we don't dwell on it, but to completely discard the idea as false is also completely idiotic.

Also, Neosutra, you really come across as an insecure little man who thinks he has all the answers when in reality you know less than .000001% of how this reality works. For all you know all your science is a complete lie except for our daily practical uses of it. If it wasn't for the idea that the universe is stable, every single one of our so called rules of logic could change tomorrow depending on a different discovery. 10,000 years ago we'd say that it'd be impossible for a stone or metal to fly and call it logic because you'd toss a rock in the air and it'd fall to the ground, but I guess we worked around that one and changed logic didn't we?

[Kaylia]

I left the debate because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall and I dont have the endurance to continually have some ignore everything posted and ramble on continually. Just because you stated a paradox doesnt mean it's a paradox. You just stated a bunch of garbage that follows no logical order and doesnt really support anyone's argument, let alone your own.

And what facts do you want? Or more precisely, what facts support ANY theist argument?

And pin it any way you want, you're a theist who doesnt know what to call their god. But then again ive already defined your god for you, it's everything YOU dont understand about this universe.

And please stay out of particle physics in this discussion, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Theism can't make an argument, they can only talk about faith. If a theism come here and pretend he can prove God, I'm going to jump on his post immediatly. If an atheism come here and pretend he know how the world truely works, or that God don't exist, I will jump on him as well.

And if there is no paradox, could you explain me how the universe works, and why it can't be infinitely complex? How do you reject the incompletness theorem....a proven theorem. If maths can't be used to do physics, how can you expect your mathematical model to ever be completed?



And "fact" refer to this statement you made

And more importantly it isnt "beliefs vs beliefs", it's "beliefs" vs. "facts". Athests dont "believe" there isnt a god, we examine the "facts" and conclude there is no god.

Tell me what fact you examined, and how you can conclude this. Of course, I'm stupid for asking this, and you will avoid the question again....but I'm sincerely curious to see those "facts". Hell, maybe you will convince me to become an atheist if they are "fact".


[edit]
And I'm on the last year of my physics major. I'm sure you had more quantum physics class than me, but your understanding doesn't seem that good either if you don't understand what a physics model is.

[Kaylia]

the positive statements made by theistic can be attacked by anyone (i believe god is good). the position that the attacker holds is irrelevant. there's no need to assume that the loaded premise is true of false, merely point out the assumption and continue on.

I'm not sure I understood your post correctly. If the position that the attacker holds is irrelevant, can't we just say the positive statement can't be attacked?


And like I said many times already, you can only argue against a theism when he is dumb enough to affirm his beliefs as fact, or dumb enough to define a finite God in our universe. Many are, but the moment one can make the difference between faith and scientifical fact, there is nothing to add.

[Kuya]

And there are some who are dumb enough, they just probably can't use internet though.

[quannum]

I'm not sure I understood your post correctly. If the position that the attacker holds is irrelevant, can't we just say the positive statement can't be attacked?

i'm simply saying that if a position is untenable, then it can be torn down by anyone.

[Kaylia]

i'm simply saying that if a position is untenable, then it can be torn down by anyone.

Of course. You can't contradict logics with your position. It's nearly impossible to contradict a beliefs that is defined correctly tho.

[quannum]

Of course. You can't contradict logics with your position. It's nearly impossible to contradict a beliefs that is defined correctly tho.

which is not the case with the vast majority of christians that i've ever encountered. the ones who escape are the ones who transform god into platitudes, such as god is love, god is everything, etc as the only positive statement that they claim.

[Senoska]

Except belief isn't anything at all like a light switch and you're completely wrong. It's always made me mad when someone's tried to lump me into one group or the other. Did you actually bother to read my example I posted earlier? An agnostic doesn't disbelieve the existence of God or Gods or whatever you want to call it and they don't believe either. They don't even belong in the argument because they have no stance on the subject. In order for it to be so simple as on and off as you say, there'd have to be definite proof that one way or the other is fact, and there isn't. As such, both theism and atheism work on the principals of faith. An atheist has faith there is no great power at work in the universe, a theist does. It's that simple. An agnostic doesn't not believe in either, they have no freaking clue and as such don't follow either theories.

That's right, atheism and theism are just theories as to the origins and overall structure of our universe, but neither of them have any scientific proof and to think otherwise is idiotic.

As for unicorns etc.? For all we know, somewhere in the universe unicorns do exist or maybe somewhere in the long past billions of years before we first even appeared dragons flew through space. We have no idea and to state that you know for a fact that that wasn't ever possible is indeed close-minded. If you really want to get philosophical, no one else around you may even physically exist at all. Everything we know may be a complete lie fabricated by some unknown force (Hello the Matrix). It's depressing to think of the universe that way and as far as we know, unlikely so we don't dwell on it, but to completely discard the idea as false is also completely idiotic.

Hi! Meet:

GDI, you can't just be "Agnostic" stop saying you are. Agnostic is a STATEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE. Not of BELIEF. You flat up are a theist or an atheist, agnostic or gnostic is a prefix to that. (Directed at entire thread, not one person in general.)

Tell me how you can half believe something. Assuming you are aware of the concept of god you believe it or you don't, and assuming you do because you're posted in this thread, you've only proven my point. There is no "sitting out" of this. You believe it or you don't. There isn't even a "half sure" in belief. Hence: it's a light switch. Half believing is still believing.

[Kaylia]

which is not the case with the vast majority of christians that i've ever encountered. the ones who escape are the ones who transform god into platitudes, such as god is love, god is everything, etc as the only positive statement that they claim.

What's wrong if you believe that "god is everything" or "God is love". They are general and vague beliefs, but there isn't much to say against this belief if you want to attack it.

[Cow_k]

Hi! Meet:

Tell me how you can half believe something. Assuming you are aware of the concept of god you believe it or you don't, and assuming you do because you're posted in this thread, you've only proven my point. There is no "sitting out" of this. You believe it or you don't. There isn't even a "half sure" in belief. Hence: it's a light switch. Half believing is still believing.

And after reposting your own argument without reading mine fully, did you read what I wrote a page or two back about the cheese lovers and haters? You say belief is a two way street, but you don't realize that agnostics don't even partake in the stance. Basically, agnostics state that even having a belief or non-belief in god isn't even a question we can ask right now.

To put it simply, agnostics don't even see a belief as even existing with the knowledge we know. To say that someone either believes or they don't believe is ridiculous when we don't even know if having a belief in the first place is even valid. I resent being told that I don't believe in God when that's not the case at all. I also resent people saying I'm religious simply because I don't discount the possibility of an existence of a higher power. Again, these are theories and there are multiple theories in existence. Agnostics are just open to more theories than theists and atheists.

[Senoska]

I didn't read your post about "cheese lovers", no. I don't think I need to in order to respond to your current post, which is flat out wrong. You're redefining agnostic to fit yourself, which you cannot do. Agnostic literally means A - Without Gnostic - Knowledge, meaning you can't say for certain, but this has NOTHING to do with "agnostics don't even see a belief as even existing with the knowledge we know". You STILL have a place here because you know of it, having knowledge only lets you support your argument. An Agnostic Atheist, for example, says "I don't believe in a god, but I'm not sure if there is one".

And for the record, I intend on repeating this point until you understand you're using wordz wrong n shit.

[Neosutra]

What's wrong if you believe that "god is everything" or "God is love". They are general and vague beliefs, but there isn't much to say against this belief if you want to attack it.

Because those statements are not really saying anything. They are not quantifying a belief, or even really stating what they believe. God is love, or God is everything, are paradoxial statements that go against the very definition of a heirachal diety. It's like saying "everything is nothing", it is a superfluous statement that people recite because they are told too. It keeps god in the realm of undefinable so they can believe silly things w/o being attacked via logic/facts. It just takes the theist argument to an entirely different level, one so absurb it violates even their own definitions of dieties. "God" is nothing more than ignorance.

[Cow_k]

Sweet pancakes, there's no such thing as an agnostic atheist. Go look at all the freaking definitions that exist. It's a direct contradiction. Atheism is an ABSOLUTE. There's no room for movement. Atheism describes someone who is without a doubt convinced that there is no God or higher power, never will be and never was. Do I need to go repost the multiple definitions of atheism that I posted back then because you're too ignorant to even go back and look at what's already been said?

Let's say we have 4 people. Person A says he's thinking about a sandwich. Person B says "I believe that you're thinking about a sandwich." Person C says "I don't believe that you're thinking about a sandwich." Person D says "You know, you might be thinking about a sandwich, but I'm going to hold off on judgment because I have no idea if you're thinking about a sandwich because I can't get in your brain and see what you're thinking."

Guess what, Person B is a theist, Person C is an atheist and person D is an agnostic. Now are you truly sitting there telling me that person D can't withhold judgment because it's impossible for him to know the truth? Obviously he because he doesn't know, he automatically believes that Person A isn't thinking about a sandwich.

Your argument is completely flawed because you state if someone doesn't throw down a 100% belief they're automatically against it. Well, where does that put you if you don't 100% not believe? Atheism is an absolute belief. There is no room to budge. I will break out the definitions again if you can't wrap your brain around the idea that atheism is an absolute even though they've already been posted numerous times. Atheist ARE NOT open to the idea that God can exist. They absolutely are not, and if proof of God gets put in their face and they start to believe in God? Guess what!? They aren't an atheist anymore! Fancy that!

[Neosutra]

Hey Cow, how about you read the thread before going off on the definitions.

The definition of Atheism and Agnostism have been debated and quoted a dozen times. You arent just amazing us here with your logic that we just dont seem to get by quoting us your interpretation of them.

[Senoska]

Holy shit, lol. WUT IS ENGLISH GUIZ

[Cow_k]

Hey Cow, how about you read the thread before going off on the definitions.

The definition of Atheism and Agnostism have been debated and quoted a dozen times. You arent just amazing us here with your logic that we just dont seem to get by quoting us your interpretation of them.

Which is why I got into this argument in the first place. Your so-called definition was so far off the mark it blew my mind.

Holy shit, lol. WUT IS ENGLISH GUIZ

Obviously you have no idea when actual accepted definitions completely go against your idea. I guess I have to break out the definitions of what atheism is again since you both seem so convinced that your own definitions are oh so superior and too lazy to look back. I seem to be the only one actually quoting intellectually accepted definitions here.

Atheist:
Dictionary.com:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

American Heritage:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Webster's Revised:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.


Agnostic
Dictionary.com:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

American Heritage:
1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Webster's revised:
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

If you know of any better dictionaries than these go ahead and throw their definitions up here, but the one's listed here are some of the most widely used English dictionaries in existence.

Here's another one from the Oxford English dictionary:
agnostic
• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

atheism
• noun the belief that God does not exist.

How about some actual proof of your claims that don't come from wikipedia, which any intellectual institution would toss out the window, instead of making up your own definitions for words. But hey, who needs actual definitions when we can just make up our own bullshit.

[Demosthenes11]

Because those statements are not really saying anything. They are not quantifying a belief, or even really stating what they believe. God is love, or God is everything, are paradoxial statements that go against the very definition of a heirachal diety. It's like saying "everything is nothing", it is a superfluous statement that people recite because they are told too. It keeps god in the realm of undefinable so they can believe silly things w/o being attacked via logic/facts. It just takes the theist argument to an entirely different level, one so absurb it violates even their own definitions of dieties. "God" is nothing more than ignorance.

you never addressed what is bad about it
I'm sorry it bothers you that some of us do "see" god in love. You can call me ignorant til you're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that I do.

[Jefe]

Come on guys, if you are having trouble grasping the concept of basic words such as agnostic, theist, atheist, an all teh jazz ;I'd suggest you folks take a remedial philosophy class in your local community college.

"HAY GUISE, TO ME ATHEISM/THEISM IS: fill in the blank." lol... Get that fucking stick out of your ass lol.