Religulous

[Kaylia]

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.

I don't see where the paradox is, or at least, I don't see it in this context.

God is love is simply a way to link religion to morals, and God is everything simply define God as an infinity to avoid the "finite god" problems (ie: Zeus). I don't see the paradox, it's just a definition based on a beliefs.

You don't keep God in the realm of undefinable to avoid silly argument, you keep it there because it's illogical to place him anywhere else if you believe in the existance of a superior being. One problem with your reasoning is that you seem to think religion rationalize God, when in fact, they describe it as something that can't be defined.

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.

You forgot to answer this post. Which facts allow you to conclude there is no God?

[Kaylia]

Come on guys, if you are having trouble grasping the concept of basic words such as theist and atheist, 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.

Might want to go edit the wiki page then, because there is more than one definition in most case, and certain definition are overlapping each other.

I just don't understand why people are so stuck up about specific definition...language is just a tool we use to communicate. As long our definition are consistant..it's fine.

[Cow_k]

That's the problem, our definitions aren't consistent with definitions that have been widely accepted as true for hundreds of years.

And wikipedia again is a poor source to look for factual meaning of something. Someone could basically write an entry level philosophy paper and toss it up there and everyone's supposed to assume it's fact? Hell, I could go on wikipedia right now and write "Atheism is the belief that ham sandwiches will bestow all man with the power of flight."

[Anyway]

I've always been curious about something, maybe you religious people can help me out. All babies are born with original sin. Now what if say, that baby dies from SIDS before its baptism. Does it go to hell?

Please don't say it goes to heaven just because it's a baby, that totally makes the idea of original sin and baptism and shit pointless. I'm not trying to argue, I've just never gotten a straight answer.

[Kaylia]

I've always been curious about something, maybe you religious people can help me out. All babies are born with original sin. Now what if say, that baby dies from SIDS before its baptism. Does it go to hell?

Please don't say it goes to heaven just because it's a baby, that totally makes the idea of original sin and baptism and shit pointless. I'm not trying to argue, I've just never gotten a straight answer.

Not anymore. They changed their official belief a few years ago saying it's not what God would do probably.

That's the problem, our definitions aren't consistent with definitions that have been widely accepted as true for hundreds of years.

And wikipedia again is a poor source to look for factual meaning of something. Someone could basically write an entry level philosophy paper and toss it up there and everyone's supposed to assume it's fact? Hell, I could go on wikipedia right now and write "Atheism is the belief that ham sandwiches will bestow all man with the power of flight."

Who do you think write dictionary and encyclopedia? I would rather have the opinion of many people instead of 1.

You could go write this if you want, but it will be edited out in less than 24h most likely, and common sense usually ring an alarm when something has a biased tone to it.

[Anyway]

it's not what God would do probably.

That's absolutely ridiculous. But thanks for the answer.

[Kaylia]

That's absolutely ridiculous. But thanks for the answer.

Well, there was probably more than that. The whole point was to remove the contradiction between the forgiving God and the older one (and stop scaring mom who lose their children).

[Neosutra]

Wow, alot of responses. But to Kaylia:

"What facts allow me to conclude there is no god".

The fact that the burden of proof lay with the person presenting the theory. Since there is no proof or any sound logical premis for ANY deity, there is no reason to assign any belief to said deities.

Should I believe in flying pink monkies? They have the same evidence that god does of existing. I cant "prove" flying pink monkies dont exist, but then again it would be irresponsible to require a person to disprove any hypothesis presented without requiring evidence or plausibility.

There is no reason -what so ever- to believe in god, other than blind ignorance.

[Lordwafik]

says who?

[Kaylia]

It's not a theory, it's a beliefs, a statement that one assume to be true because he had a particular reason to. Flying pink monkeys don't answers any questions in your context, God do for theists.

1-Why do you exist?
2-Will sciences ever be able to predict (understand) -everything-, including the higher level of existence you can observe in the nature?

If you can figure, using facts, an answer to both questions, feel free to discredit the idea of a God. Otherwise, your statement that "it is possible to conclude there is no God" is wrong.

It does not mean there is a God, or that God is an answer, but you can't deny there is a question, and you can't "disprove" the postulate (beliefs) people picked.

[Zalius]

Wow, alot of responses. But to Kaylia:

"What facts allow me to conclude there is no god".

The fact that the burden of proof lay with the person presenting the theory. Since there is no proof or any sound logical premis for ANY deity, there is no reason to assign any belief to said deities.

Should I believe in flying pink monkies? They have the same evidence that god does of existing. I cant "prove" flying pink monkies dont exist, but then again it would be irresponsible to require a person to disprove any hypothesis presented without requiring evidence or plausibility.

There is no reason -what so ever- to believe in god, other than blind ignorance.

ever take a personality test and get "THAT guy"?

[Zalius]

It's not a theory, it's a beliefs, a statement that one assume to be true because he had a particular reason to. Flying pink monkeys don't answers any questions in your context, God do for theists.

1-Why do you exist?
2-Will sciences ever be able to predict (understand) -everything-, including the higher level of existence you can observe in the nature?

If you can figure, using facts, an answer to both questions, feel free to discredit the idea of a God. Otherwise, your statement that "it is possible to conclude there is no God" is wrong.

i was just gonna call him a douchebag but you're good at this

[Roranora]

It does not mean there is a God, or that God is an answer, but you can't deny there is a question, and you can't "disprove" the postulate (beliefs) people picked.

You can't disprove people's absurd beliefs, but you can shrug off the majority of the idiotic explanations to the questions science is still asking. Let's just talk like humans will eventually figure it all out... which I doubt, but it's a nice thought. '-'

To start, I agree with the statement this burden doesn't fall on the people who are 'still' atheist. The majority of atheists aren't going to have a problem when science brings them the explanation. Nonetheless, I can still ramble out a couple of the obvious questions I'm sure many people have with the most popular religions.

First of all, let's assume that the God in the minds of most religious people involves him/her/it being some creature capable of thought, decisions, actions, and influence. Have we, since Kaylia is probably some biological expert as well, seen any indication or possibility, at all, that any being would support any more than a finite amount of viable living material? I know life cycles can and do put humans' to shame, but can some entity remain present and alive indefinitely? Does this God really struggle for all eternity with recruiting as many humans as he can, from an arbitrary planet in an arbitrary galaxy (which is apparently nothing more than an extravagant and perplexing backdrop to the only setting he cares about?), based on their conscious feelings and behaviors in a "life" they're so generously given? Does this God have a single competitor, like Satan, in recruiting humans to come live afterlife A or afterlife B? Are these afterlives something we can't simply grasp living this life? Do we have souls? Is that what lives these afterlives? What the fuck is a soul..? ..I hope most people feel the questions have already reached the realm of absurdity.

Or is a God about more than an afterlife competition? (You get more virgins from this God!) Like.. are we talking about people who actually believe the earth is 4+ billion years old but yet are religious? And I feel there is a multitude of religious people who fall in this demographic; they just want an answer, explanation, and/or the comfort of the idea of an afterlife.. and they stopped when their ability to have faith gave them that. I'd assume most atheists want an ultimate answer and absolute understanding of our universe, but we're not liking any of the shit brought to the table yet. We are, however, liking this idea of logical thinking; we'll happily take the collective work of our scientific studies and feel pretty sound in "believing" there is no God.


I don't really know what you're (Kaylia) expecting from people; the definition of God is going to vary from person to person. And wanting a list of facts from people as to why his/her idea of a God is bogus is going to get you an assorted list of information, all of which probably won't mesh with your idea of what your God is anyway...




And what is

2-Will sciences ever be able to predict (understand) -everything-, including the higher level of existence you can observe in the nature?

all about? I assume you had something at the front of your mind when you typed that..

It sound like some event has convinced you of something? Care to elaborate?

[Blarg]

It's cute how Cow thinks we are all just misunderstanding what an atheist and an agnostic is. Cute in the same way that Ralph Wiggum eats crayons.

[Kaylia]

You can't disprove people's absurd beliefs, but you can shrug off the majority of the idiotic explanations to the questions science is still asking. Let's just talk like humans will eventually figure it all out... which I doubt, but it's a nice thought. '-'

shrugging off =/= disproving, you're simply avoiding the topic.


If you want to discredit their beliefs, you have to discredit, at the very least, the question they were answering. If you can't say anything about the question, then you have to admit the answer could be anything, even if your belief make you think their beliefs are ridiculous.

Most educated theist won't try to explain the known universe with God. They try to answer something even more fundamental about the origins of all.

First of all, let's assume that the God in the minds of most religious people involves him/her/it being some creature capable of thought, decisions, actions, and influence. Have we, since Kaylia is probably some biological expert as well, seen any indication or possibility, at all, that any being would support any more than a finite amount of viable living material? I know life cycles can and do put humans' to shame, but can some entity remain present and alive indefinitely? Does this God really struggle for all eternity with recruiting as many humans as he can, from an arbitrary planet in an arbitrary galaxy (which is apparently nothing more than an extravagant and perplexing backdrop to the only setting he cares about?), based on their conscious feelings and behaviors in a "life" they're so generously given? Does this God have a single competitor, like Satan, in recruiting humans to come live afterlife A or afterlife B? Are these afterlives something we can't simply grasp living this life? Do we have souls? Is that what lives these afterlives? What the fuck is a soul..? ..I hope most people feel the questions have already reached the realm of absurdity.

A=undefined B=characteristic1 C=characteristic2
A^B^C= undefined

All those pretty descriptions you're talking about are nice, but when you slap the basic definition of God, they lose their sense. God is postulated inthe infinity, and you can't rationalize it..you believe it exists, but you can't define it.

Wording might be a bit off, but I'm too tired to write something longer (pretty sure there is earlier in this thread)

I don't really know what you're (Kaylia) expecting from people; the definition of God is going to vary from person to person. And wanting a list of facts from people as to why his/her idea of a God is bogus is going to get you an assorted list of information, all of which probably won't mesh with your idea of what your God is anyway...

Just go read the thread from the start. Almost all those points were answered in details in previous post (not to mention its 3am and I'm getting tired). I'm certain I said we need to define the concept of a God, if we even want to argue the theism/atheism case...arguing them 1 by 1 is ridiculous and won't prove anything

all about? I assume you had something at the front of your mind when you typed that..

It sound like some event has convinced you of something? Care to elaborate?

3rd time, but this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...teness_theorem

-Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory.

-For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e., effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.


In other word, there is always something unknown in your model that you have to postulate (assume it's true), otherwise, your model is inconsistant.


If you accept it's impossible to explain "everything", it's obvious why I say you will always be able to postulate the existence of a God that can't disproven (doesn't mean it exists, it just mean you will never be able to say anything against it)

[Kaelan?]

But there is a difference between a theory that has one particular element within it that can't be proven or well defined (such as, say, the geometric definition of a point) and a theory in which there is no proof of any sort, at all and which, in addition, explains nothing and obscures almost everything (creates mysteries where none exist, as they say).

[Kaylia]

You can most likely get around this issue if space/time is quantified in physics the same way energy is, but anyway...

If there is a single elements from your model that can't be explained, it means there is a better models out there. I'm not comparing god to a physics model, I was simply saying it will never be possible to have a theory of everything (it will be very possible to have a theory of everything that matter for us, but it's not everything).

What you do with this "unknown" element is up to you and your beliefs. No matter how you twist it around or try to analyze, you're looking at an infinity, something that can't make any sense.



[edit]
And trying to give the geometric definition of a point is proven to be impossible, it's not just "not well defined"

[Cow_k]

It's cute how Cow thinks we are all just misunderstanding what an atheist and an agnostic is. Cute in the same way that Ralph Wiggum eats crayons.

I think it's cute that people think you can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time when it's both absurd and idiotic.

Who do you think write dictionary and encyclopedia? I would rather have the opinion of many people instead of 1

Except again, a lot of information in wikipedia doesn't actually come from actual relevant sources and no one's actually gone through to 100% fact check everything on any given page other than random bored person #2-50. Again, there's a reason why you can't use wikipedia as a source in any actual research report and actually be taken seriously. And again, we're dealing with words that have already been argued and defined once again through hundreds of years. These are concepts that are rather set in stone at this point and to misuse their meaning can lead only to further ignorance. Oh, but remember, rape is actually surprise sex right? If we all believed that was the real definition I doubt rape would be taken very seriously.

[Cow_k]

Also, for the record, I pretty much agree with almost everything Kaylia says in this topic. He/She's definately the voice of reason in a sea of madness here.

[Kaelan?]

Right. And that's fine, but at that point, why bother calling it God? I mean from what I understand, I could replace your view of God with Nature or Infinity or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (the IPU is Infinite and beyond human understanding; how it manages to be simultaneously Pink and Invinsible is not meant to be comprehended by simple human minds - you just have to believe) and it wouldn't really change what you're saying.

The main problem I have with that view is that it's completely surplus to requirements. It doesn't say anything about the world or people or the universe or anything else, it's just kind of there. At that point, I guess you can personally believe whatever you want if it floats your boat, but in any kind of logical argument it can be completely dismissed by thing like, say, Ockham's Razor.

I guess you can call what whatever you want if that gets you through the night - hell, our world would be undeniably a better place if all religious people though the way you do, but nevertheless that's completely different from what 99% of people talk about when they talk about God. And that is what most people are referring to when they argue for or against God.

And trying to give the geometric definition of a point is be proven to be impossible, it's not just "not well defined"

But there is a difference between a theory that has one particular element within it that can't be proven or well defined (such as, say, the geometric definition of a point)

What?