Religulous

[Kaylia]

can't be proven or well defined

This? You said one or the other, I specified it was the first one. I guess it was a pointless comment since it was an example.

Right. And that's fine, but at that point, why bother calling it God? I mean from what I understand, I could replace 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) in what I understand of your view of God and it wouldn't really change anything.

Because we already have the word "god" to define this?

I can't stop you from believing in this infinite invisible pink unicorn if you have your reason to believe that it would explain unanswerable question. I could say a 3d image is particularly specific (and finite) to describe an infinity, but you have the right to picture it the way you want.

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.

Ockam's Razor can eliminate every specifications you gave to your God, but it can't eliminate God itself in the scenario where the ultimate cause is believed to be God.

Either way, theism can usually be explained with two simple beliefs
1- Beliefs that God exists
2- The beliefs that if he cares about us, he will give us hint (through our soul, reasoning..or w/e) that he exists

From this, it's easy to understand the reasoning behind their specific description of God. I personally don't agree, but what can I say.

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.

I'm an agnosticist, not theism. ;x

I'm not arguing in the existence of a God, I'm arguing that it is impossible to say anything about the existence (or non existence) of a God.


[edit]
Lot of typo fixed, but there is probably as many left. Done for the night either way...been up for too long.

[Kaelan?]

Because we already have the word "god" to define this?

But we don't have the word God to define that. That's your personal definition of the word, which happens to not be the definition of 99% of everybody else. It's best avoided because the word God is like the word Sports. It's like saying you believe in God, then having to turn around and spending 30 minutes explaining that by the way you mean Spinoza's God and how you're not really religious when you say God. At that point why not just use something other than that specific word in the first place?

Ockam's Razor can eliminate every specifications you gave to your God, but it can't eliminate God itself in the scenario where the ultimate cause is believed to be God.

It can if your definition of God is what I understand it is. If you say god does something or explains something or has some specific property but you don't provide any details or evidence or at least a good reason to believe that to be the correct explanation, then that is eliminated by Ockham's Razor.

On the other hand, if you don't give it any properties at all, then it explains nothing and adds unneeded complexity without good reason, without anything even remotely resembling evidence to support that; which also means it can be dismissed. God isn't the solution to the first cause problem, it's just restating the problem while simultaneously adding a whole ton of new problems. If it doesn't go anywhere, isn't solving the problem and actually makes even more problems while it's at it, then Ockham's Razor eliminates it as a valid theory.

I haven't really been keeping up with this thread and I wish I had been able to comment earlier, but it does amuse (and simultaneously annoy) me that several atheists say "Atheism is Y." and then multiple non-atheist people repeatedly insist that "No, you're wrong! Let me show what your way of thinking is for you. Atheism is X!", despite the fact that almost every atheist arguing says "Nooo...atheism is Y." It does feel kind of reminiscent of Christians who used to insist that some random part of culture or modernity wasn't anything of what people actually using it said it was, but it was actually the work of Satan (from technology to D&D, take your pick). Or what most people believe Satanism to be (i.e. what most Christians insist it is), versus what actual Satanists say it is.

[Kaylia]

Gah...I shouldnt be here this late

Most people don't push their reasoning this far, but their definition is still close to the one I used. Pretty sure many religions talk about God as the causeless God, and affirm that God is a being you can't rationalize.

It's true everyone define God differently, but generally speaking, we can assume they postulated him to answer metaphysics questions (why we exist..etc). You can have a "theism/atheism" cause if God has more than 1 meaning.


God is always one of the possible answer to this question. If you can cut it with Ockam's Razor, you have to cut every answers to this question...which mean there is no possible valid answer. However, that's how you defined the concept of God...you suposed its existence knowing it won't be possible for you to find an answer you can rationalize.

[Senoska]

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.



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.



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.

Your definitions only went against you, I don't know why you quoted them. You can be a nonbeliever and still hold the stance that you're unsure, like myself.

I will never know if there is a god, but for the time being I don't believe in one.

I'll use your definitions.

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

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

You can say you disbelieve but don't claim that to be ultimate knowledge.

[Roranora]

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.

Most theists aren't at all like you, and you know it. (I know you're an agnostic; I've got at least that much from my minimal skimming of this thread.) You're giving far too much credit to the average religious person.

God is postulated inthe infinity, and you can't rationalize it..you believe it exists, but you can't define it.

Again, this is contrary with the majority of religious people. In fact, it is defined in most religions, and many people want no part of those definitions. The concept of a God, to you, is undefinable, but that is where you differ greatly with what you're actually defending. You wanted some list as to why people want to believe in nothing; I simply tried to humor you with a couple common beliefs. I don't want to argue with you, regardless of whether or not you want to argue with me. I just tried to comment where people seemed to be ignoring you and your questions. If anything, you should be thankful ..and not insisting I read the entire thread. >.>; I don't care to read the entirety of this thread, especially when you seem to want me to get as unnecessarily pumped up about agnosticism vs atheism as you are.

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)

One doesn't have to have an answer to say another answer is wrong. Your general interpretation of God as simply the explanation to currently unexplainable phenomena is broad enough that I have no issue with it, but generally atheists will roll their eyes at the what God usually is to religious people, because it varies infinitely from your thoughts.

[Neosutra]

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.

Flying pink monkeys explain everything to me.

Flying pink monkeys are love.

Flying pink monkeys ARE everything.

Flying pink monkeys are everywhere.

Flying pink monkeys created the universe.

Flying pink monkeys created whatever created the universe.

Flying pink monkeys require me to donate 10% of my money to the flying pink monkey fund weekly.

There we go, I have the same proof/definitions of theism for my religion.

Also: "Why do I exist" LOL, you cant be that dense. There is no special purpose for your shitty excuse for an existance. You are a packaged result of entropy, and nothing more. A combination of arduously evolved protein packets whose sole "purpose" is to consume and procreate.

And get off your soap box of science not being able to model higher dimensions. There isnt some magic dimension that is for some reason inable to be modeled. If it has any influence on our system, we will be able to model/understand it one day. Dont be so fucking dense.

[Neosutra]

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.

Dont like to post 2 post in a row. But you are an idiot. Not only are you not contributing to this debate, you are sitting on the sidelines cheering on the most illogical member of it.

edit: And no, you're probably not an idiot Cow, but please refrain from posts that include nothing but "so and so is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong". State your premis and debate your side, dont piggyback on something else.

[0ni0n]

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.

Theists assume the existence of God, they have the burden of proof. Atheists' premise is that nothing exists unless proved otherwise, just like everything in life. I didn't read the whole thread, excuse me if this point has already been made.

[Neosutra]

Theists assume the existence of God, they have the burden of proof. Atheists' premise is that nothing exists unless proved otherwise, just like everything in life. I didn't read the whole thread, excuse me if this point has already been made.

The point has been made and ignored about 30 times so far and will be ignored another 30 times by kaylia and her squad of theist cheerleaders.

[Demosthenes11]

I don't know why scientific proof even matters. To the individual, it really shouldn't. Many religions have been belligerent in their beliefs, but for one person to believe one thing about god - it hurts nobody. If someone's individual proof is life and love and luck, what does it matter? They are crazy because they find and extra solace in those things? The feelings exist whether the scientific method was used or not.

Your flying pink monkeys is simply another word for god. It's possible they can't exist in the physical sense because of the parameters you described. So you are no longer talking about dictionary flying pink monkeys.

If you want to be scientific about the approach to god that is fine, but pushing that belief on others is nonsensical in your position that religion just pushes their shit on other people.

It's just funny when the "theists" are arguing their side, and are only met with "GOD UR RETARDED YOU MORON" in return. Kaylia has asked you a bolded question probably 5 times now which you still have yet to answer. Calling him out on something similar is hypocritical.

Retorting "why do I exist" with what you said is the exact opposite of your scientific approach as well. You basically just said your feelings, where's your proof? It's certainly possible that it is the meaning of life, but what is wrong with believing otherwise?

You have still yet to explain why individual beliefs, which hurt nobody, are bad, and instead insist on badgering people with insults and circles.

[Neosutra]

I don't know why scientific proof even matters.

Is all I read, and all that you really contribute.

And do a search function for the last religious debate. I'm not going to get into the same arguments of the down sides of religion, regardless of how many times you ask for it. All that has been addressed and stated in the last topic. And I ignore the bolded questions of kaylia that are retarded nonsensical excuses for conjecture, and address the questions that are at least formed logical arguments (the few she presents). You on the other hand add nothing to this debate other than "lol proof doesnt matter as long as it makes people happy gawd why cant you see that". Nice contribution there Einstien.

[Demosthenes11]

you are just the beacon of reason aren't you

[Kuya]

Man, people sure are persistent with wanting to disprove that which can not be proved or disproved. All this commotion over wanting to say that a god does not exist, and tell everyone that they're stupid for believing in one, man. Furthermore, it is also quite funny that practically no one said that a god, as a positive statement, is real and the creator of anything, and yet others want them to provide the burden of proof when they never positively asserted anything of the sort.

Also, it seems one side is arguing that an infinite deity as the cause of creation is not provable or disprovable, while the other is content with repeating that theists are dumb, and of course, i'm being flippant with that.

It is also even funnier that the example of "BUT IT CAN BE ANYTHING!!" is continuing to be brought up when it was mentioned numerous times already that it doesn't matter what you conceptualize it as long as it doesn't break any laws nor cause any apparent inconsistencies, apart from being a statement tantamount to nothing, if it is in fact an infinity.

[0ni0n]

Man, people sure are persistent with wanting to disprove that which can not be proved or disproved. All this commotion over wanting to say that a god does not exist, and tell everyone that they're stupid for believing in one, man. Furthermore, it is also quite funny that practically no one said that a god, as a positive statement, is real and the creator of anything, and yet others want them to provide the burden of proof when they never positively asserted anything of the sort.

Also, it seems one side is arguing that an infinite deity as the cause of creation is not provable or disprovable, while the other is content with repeating that theists are dumb, and of course, i'm being flippant with that.

It is also even funnier that the example of "BUT IT CAN BE ANYTHING!!" is continuing to be brought up when it was mentioned numerous times already that it doesn't matter what you conceptualize it as long as it doesn't break any laws nor cause any apparent inconsistencies, apart from being a statement tantamount to nothing, if it is in fact an infinity.

I agree that religion and reason cannot be reconciled, simply because religion is based on a leap of faith, on a belief that it is true without seeing or knowing for certain. On the contrary, reason is rooted in logic. You can neither prove or disprove the existence of god. Despite that, people have been fanatically attempting either for thousands of years.

Personally, i think religion has done a lot harm, namely wars, inquisition, other religious fundamental atrocities, disenfranchisement of women in the middle east and other parts of the world, etc. It comes as little surprise that people are so frequently questioning the necessity of religion as a whole. Though few realize that the method that we employ is largely ineffective, especially attacking the root of religion by casting doubt on the existence of god from a scientific standpoint. The only means that will loosen the religion's grip on humanity would be a progression of technology and the understanding of science. Eventually and hopefully, we don't have to give in to our superstition in our quest to understand the world around us.

[Kuya]

Personally, i think religion has done a lot harm, namely wars, inquisition, other religious fundamental atrocities, disenfranchisement of women in the middle east and other parts of the world, etc. It comes as little surprise that people are so frequently questioning the necessity of religion as a whole. Though few realize that the method that we employ is largely ineffective, especially attacking the root of religion by casting doubt on the existence of god from a scientific standpoint. The only means that will loosen the religion's grip on humanity would be a progression of technology and the understanding of science. Eventually and hopefully, we don't have to give in to our superstition in our quest to understand the world around us.

Yet instead of arguing this in detail, everyone seems to want to argue the dead end debate of whether a deity exists, a debate which no doubt millions have had thousands of years ago, or what fucking agnostic or atheist means. People really seem to have their priorities out of bounds.

[0ni0n]

Yet instead of arguing this in detail, everyone seems to want to argue the dead end debate of whether a deity exists, a debate which no doubt millions have had thousands of years ago, or what fucking agnostic or atheist means. People really seem to have their priorities out of bounds.

My guess is that it's like sports. Nobody knows who's gonna win the world series, but that doesn't stop us from talking about it or arguing for our favorite team endlessly. I have seen most, if not all the arguments regarding religion. Religious debates usually degrade to one side saying "prove it or shove it!" with the other side responding "LOL but..but the bible, why don't you disprove it?" You just can't help it.

[Neosutra]

My guess is that it's like sports. Nobody knows who's gonna win the world series, but that doesn't stop us from talking about it or arguing for our favorite team endlessly. I have seen most, if not all the arguments regarding religion. Religious debates usually degrade to one side saying "prove it or shove it!" with the other side responding "LOL but..but the bible, why don't you disprove it?" You just can't help it.

Pretty much exactly the reasoning I dont want to get into another "lol this is why religion is good/bad" discussion.

Atheists would state that religion is the cause for war/prejudice/anti-intellectual political movements(stem cells/evolution)/hindering of scientific progress/sexism, and discrimination. One would say that belief in a diety whom condems people that dont follow a set of beliefs leads to people who also condem others based on dogma that cannot be reasoned with. If a person believes that a supreme being is their ideal perfection and strives to be like that being in every way, then it is very damaging when that being states that non believers are to be torchered and burn for all eternity.

A theist would then state that those issues are present without religion, but rather are the cause of man, inherent to our societies ignorance and fears.

While this is true, the problem becomes that if a person holds a prejudice due to a non supernatural reasoning, that prejudice can eventually be educated away, and the populous can move on culterally and evolve intellectually. However if the prejudice is attatched to some divine being that is without flaw, then no logic or evidence to the contrary will ever be able to convince that person. Take the equal treatment of women for example. Women can be logically and scientifically determined to be as intelligent as men and should be treated as equals. However many religions (western and middle eastern) continually treat their women as second rate citizens because their religion tells them too.

The problem isnt that religion causes all of those travesties, as mankind is the cause of its own suffering. The problem is that when religion is tied to these issues, it elevates the prejudice to a level that cannot be reasoned away because it is "unquestionable".

Applying a standard to what humanity accepts as facts allows people to filter these beliefs in a way that makes us less succeptible to dogma that encourages prejudice and violence.

That added with the facts that the psychological support of a fictional entity is severly less helpful than having real friends/family/support systems, makes a compeling argument for the overall destructive nature of religion in our society. If a child maintains a fictional invisible friend past a certain age, any psychologist can tell you that detrimental effects will begin to arise as the child relies more on that entity than real people. The same can be said for religion, that gives a false sense of support to the people that accept the dogma, and adds a vulnerability to prejudice and other fears that are justified through divine acceptance.

More along the lines of what you were asking for Kuya?

[Kuya]

While this is true, the problem becomes that if a person holds a prejudice due to a non supernatural reasoning, that prejudice can eventually be educated away, and the populous can move on culterally and evolve intellectually. However if the prejudice is attatched to some divine being that is without flaw, then no logic or evidence to the contrary will ever be able to convince that person.

Understandable, but now you're going to have to explain why you put all religions (you also said you were attacking all spiritual belief) on the same plate, as someone gets the feeling that you're saying that all religions and spiritual belief systems are the same, you're going to, as i've mentioned quite a few times, have to outline why religions and spiritual beliefs that don't share these qualities, should share the same blame. For example, Buddhism is a non theist religion, Animism is often neither theist or a religion, and Wicca(sp?) is another example.

Women can be logically and scientifically determined to be as intelligent as men and should be treated as equals.

Funny, logic didn't seem to help many Greeks think that women were equals, nor was their motivation religious, and science has many times been guided under the same hand to try and portray women as not quite as capable as men. It is evident that misogyny is not attached to religion or any spiritual belief of the sort, or you'd have to explain why largely "atheist" cultures are just as misogynist as the theism based cultures.

Applying a standard to what humanity accepts as facts allows people to filter these beliefs in a way that makes us less succeptible to dogma that encourages prejudice and violence.

Education is a much better mechanism of relinquishing certain beliefs which are quite obviously very detrimental, naturally, of course, you won't gain what you desire of eliminating all spiritual belief, but you'll certainly get rid of the troublemakers, but that proposes that the method of getting rid of what you seem to most despise is efficient mass education, yet your methods seem more equipped to belittle people. Perhaps you should get your priorities straight and instead support education reform in the US rather than get in insult tossing contests. Either way, you can't efficiently make reason the top quality of every human being, unlike the Enlightenment might have you believe, humans don't exactly have the propensity to dive into using logic at every waking moment, so they'll always be liable to some form of persuasion that is not the most logical, especially when they get emotional which is exactly where a spiritual belief will come in, and since you're not supporting making every human being emotionless, i for-see spiritualism staying for quite a long time. Anyway, i agree education is the way of getting rid of the detrimental beliefs, especially a more liberal education, you just won't get rid of spirituality in general, though you could argue this point against me.

I conclude that one of your main issues is that by being attached to something unquestionable, certainly beliefs that may not always benefit any given social system gain a plateau of imperviousness, in this case i absolutely agree and this can be averted via contact with various other beliefs and of course, education, however this does not explain why you'd oppose belief systems or simple beliefs that neither profess any opposition or violence for any group or seek to add members to their group (a quality i most detest about judeo-christian systems, minus the jewish one), because it seems to me, the only qualities these other beliefs have is that you don't like that they're not based completely on reason or empiricism. At the very least you should discern between beliefs that you oppose because they're not empiricist and beliefs that you oppose because they're not empiricist and highly detrimental.

[Kaylia]

Flying pink monkeys explain everything to me.

Flying pink monkeys are love.

Flying pink monkeys ARE everything.

Flying pink monkeys are everywhere.

Flying pink monkeys created the universe.

Flying pink monkeys created whatever created the universe.

Flying pink monkeys require me to donate 10% of my money to the flying pink monkey fund weekly.

There we go, I have the same proof/definitions of theism for my religion.

Also: "Why do I exist" LOL, you cant be that dense. There is no special purpose for your shitty excuse for an existance. You are a packaged result of entropy, and nothing more. A combination of arduously evolved protein packets whose sole "purpose" is to consume and procreate.

And get off your soap box of science not being able to model higher dimensions. There isnt some magic dimension that is for some reason inable to be modeled. If it has any influence on our system, we will be able to model/understand it one day. Dont be so fucking dense.

You don't give money to your church because they asks you for some, you give them money because you understand they need financial support

Why "pink" is necessary? why "flying" is necessary? why is it shaped like a monkey (what good this 3d definition give you)? You need a second beliefs to justify those, otherwse, they lose their meaning if you talk about a God that isn't defined.

Also: "Why do I exist" LOL, you cant be that dense. There is no special purpose for your shitty excuse for an existance. You are a packaged result of entropy, and nothing more. A combination of arduously evolved protein packets whose sole "purpose" is to consume and procreate.

You're so fucking shallow at time it's annoying. Obviously, the direct cause is molecular interaction, which are a result of enthropy, quantum physics...etc. Why is enthropy a laws of this world? Is it the more general principle? can enthropy expain itself, you need to postulate the existence of something else for enthropy to make sense. There is no answer to those questions, because you believes that enthropy is true, and you postulated the existance of energy.


And I never said science isn't able to modelize a particular higher dimension, they can't modelize something that require an infinite amount of axioms, or that require axioms that can't be defined.

[Blarg]

What exactly entails being 'spiritual'? I always hear people talk about a humans need to be spiritual (and it's not always said in a religious sense) so what exactly is it? I get the feeling it's about souls and guardian angels and interconnectedness of all living creatures and whatnot.