Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

J C · 26-02-2015 10:54PM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

materialistic ??? what post that i sent said i was materialistic.... no disrespect jc you need to get your water sprinkler checked.... stick to the debate jc

... let's call it your 'irreligious' ideas then, if that is OK with you.

uncleoswald · 26-02-2015 10:58PM

katydid wrote: »

You didn't phrase it wrong or harshly. Just strangely. You are assuming that someone like me is unwittingly diminishing their own religion by equating it with a lack of faith; which is fine. But it's only your opinion.

Faith or non-faith are the same thing on a level of logic and rationality. Belief or faith doesn't operate on that level.

I can't help but notice you really didn't answer the question.

All I am saying is that everyone has an infinite number of beliefs and non-beliefs that require certain amounts of faith. Do you put them all at the same level or does your religious belief stand out personally with a capital 'B'? Is it different then your non-beliefs in Unicorns etc..? I imagine it is much different otherwise why would religion hold such an important part in culture. I respect that. But I think believers need to respect that my non-belief in god is entirely on the same level as my non-belief Thor.

J C · 26-02-2015 10:59PM

orubiru wrote: »

In my living room there is a TV.

There are many channels I could watch.

I may choose a channel based on what I like to see, my mood, the things that people recommend, etc, etc.

OR I could switch the TV off.

You appear to be arguing that if I do not feel like watching any channels on TV and switch it off... I am still watching something?

Tell me, how does one watch nothing?

So, how does one "believe" in nothing?

Surely for belief to exist there must first be something to believe IN?

If I believe in nothing how could argue that I actually believe in something?

Are you saying that nothing is actually something?

... but the thing is, you don't believe in 'nothing' ... you have a complete world-view belief system based on materialisitic explantions for everything ... and the non-existence of any god.
... something like the mirror-image of my belief system.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 26-02-2015 11:00PM

J C wrote: »

... let's call it your 'irreligious' ideas then, if that is OK with you.

thats ok with me..... as i was born a roman catholic and now would consider myself an agnostic/athiest..... however if religion makes you feel good about yourself and makes you be kind and good to others then it has a place in this world.... if religion makes you kill then it would appear that religion is mans interpretation of a fairytale

J C · 26-02-2015 11:04PM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

thats ok with me..... as i was born a roman catholic and now would consider myself an agnostic/athiest..... however if religion makes you feel good about yourself and makes you be kind and good to others then it has a place in this world.... if religion makes you kill then it would appear that religion is mans interpretation of a fairytale

I agree with you there allright.

... but please also remember that atheism doen't have a monopoly on virtue ... just like religions don't have a monopoly on vice ... either.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 26-02-2015 11:06PM

J C wrote: »

I agree with you there allright.
... but please remember that atheism doen't have monopoly on virtue ... just like religions don't have a monopoly on vice ... either.

we just have our opinions jc not a monoply especially where gods and religions are concerned as there is no hard evidence to prove anything but that one word faith

katydid · 26-02-2015 11:09PM

uncleoswald wrote: »

I can't help but notice you really didn't answer the question.

All I am saying is that everyone has an infinite number of beliefs and non-beliefs that require certain amounts of faith. Do you put them all at the same level or does your religious belief stand out personally with a capital 'B'? Is it different then your non-beliefs in Unicorns etc..? I imagine it is much different otherwise why would religion hold such an important part in culture. I respect that. But I think believers need to respect that my non-belief in god is entirely on the same level as my non-belief Thor.

I don't really see the point in answering the question; I don't put any faith or non-faith on any "level". I believe what I believe, and what you believe or don't believe is your business.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 26-02-2015 11:15PM

religion has spilled more blood than it has saved...... why would you follow it ???????????

orubiru · 26-02-2015 11:30PM

J C wrote: »

... but the thing is, you don't believe in 'nothing' ... you have a complete world-view belief system based on materialisitic explantions for everything ... and the non-existence of any god.
... something like the mirror-image of my belief system.

Nonsense. I do not even bother trying to explain everything in the world, materialistic or otherwise. For the most part I just get on with life, for the most part fulfilling my obligations and trying to enjoy myself where I can.

It is not a mirror image of your belief system.

If you live your life with God in mind and you have an awareness of God. The mirror image of that would be someone who lives their life actively denying God.

I do not think about the existence or non-existence of God all that often. I don't praise non-God in the same way that you praise God. I don't believe in non-God the way that you believe in God.

Think of all the ways that God is present in your life. For an Atheist, they don't go acknowledging "no God here".

Those aspects of your life, your personality and your thought processes that are dominated by God do not exist for a nonbeliever. When you say "thank you God for this food" or whatever, you don't have "mirror image" Atheists sitting down at dinner saying "well I know for sure this food didn't come from God".

Thinking that non belief is a form of belief really just shows that you have not really developed your ability to think logically.

I'd go as far as to say that subconsciously you see the flaws in logic that come with believing in God and mistakenly think that you can tangle the "other side" (Atheism) in the same kind of logical "red tape". You can't.

If there are 999 Gods that I could possibly believe in but I am not convinced by any of them how can you seriously hold the view that I "still believe in something"? It's a silly defence mechanism designed (well, evolved actually) to protect your own beliefs. Sad.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 26-02-2015 11:36PM

when we are all dead and a more intellectually advanced race is on this earth..... religion will not be thought about

orubiru · 26-02-2015 11:39PM

katydid wrote: »

I don't really see the point in answering the question; I don't put any faith or non-faith on any "level". I believe what I believe, and what you believe or don't believe is your business.

Then why enter the discussion at all? Now you are just sidestepping.

There are infinite things someone could believe in. Yet, you want to argue that non belief is logically the same as belief. They, according to you, both require the same faith.

So, by your own logic, your faith in God in exactly as strong as your non-faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your belief in God is logically and rationally no different from your non-belief in Unicorns or Aliens.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY · 26-02-2015 11:43PM

religion= brainwashing = control - killing

katydid · 27-02-2015 09:54AM

orubiru wrote: »

Then why enter the discussion at all? Now you are just sidestepping.

There are infinite things someone could believe in. Yet, you want to argue that non belief is logically the same as belief. They, according to you, both require the same faith.

So, by your own logic, your faith in God in exactly as strong as your non-faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your belief in God is logically and rationally no different from your non-belief in Unicorns or Aliens.

Because I don't want to/can't answer an irrelevant question, I shouldn't involve myself in the discussion???

I have already said I don't measure faith on any "levels". You have the only answer you will get.

katydid · 27-02-2015 09:55AM

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

religion= brainwashing = control - killing

Any "ism" can = brainwashing = control - killing

orubiru · 27-02-2015 10:34AM

katydid wrote: »

Because I don't want to/can't answer an irrelevant question, I shouldn't involve myself in the discussion???

I have already said I don't measure faith on any "levels". You have the only answer you will get.

You are saying that non-belief in God requires faith though right?

katydid · 27-02-2015 12:58PM

orubiru wrote: »

You are saying that non-belief in God requires faith though right?

Of course

orubiru · 27-02-2015 01:23PM

katydid wrote: »

Of course

Nobody has ever called you out on that?

The main problem with this "debate", for me, is that folks like yourself don't actually have the tools to make it a worthwhile discussion.

So, the only conclusion I have is that you don't actually bother to think about things or to educate yourself.

Atheism is a lack of belief. It is not a belief that there is no God. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

So if Person A states "God exists" and Person B says "well there's no evidence for that so I can't agree with you". Are you seriously proposing that Person B has faith that there is no God? No. They are simply saying that the evidence provided is not good enough therefore they cannot believe.

I would require proof that God exists. There is no proof. Therefore I don't need to have faith that God doesn't exist.

IF, on the other hand, you were providing good (reasonable) evidence for God and I choose not to believe then, yes, I would absolutely concede that I would be denying God in the face of evidence and that denial would be faith-based.

If you have no proof for a thing then I do not need faith to "believe" the non existence of that thing.

silverharp · 27-02-2015 01:58PM

katydid wrote: »

Of course

do you accept that one can use reason alone to dismiss any and every religion presented to date? but by implication a religious person basically starts with 2 conclusions, both that a god exists and must have shown itself in one of the Earth religions and then works back

katydid · 27-02-2015 05:17PM

silverharp wrote: »

do you accept that one can use reason alone to dismiss any and every religion presented to date? but by implication a religious person basically starts with 2 conclusions, both that a god exists and must have shown itself in one of the Earth religions and then works back

Sure. But that's on the basis that reason is a factor in the belief in a deity and in religion.

katydid · 27-02-2015 05:19PM

orubiru wrote: »

Nobody has ever called you out on that?

The main problem with this "debate", for me, is that folks like yourself don't actually have the tools to make it a worthwhile discussion.

So, the only conclusion I have is that you don't actually bother to think about things or to educate yourself.

Atheism is a lack of belief. It is not a belief that there is no God. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

So if Person A states "God exists" and Person B says "well there's no evidence for that so I can't agree with you". Are you seriously proposing that Person B has faith that there is no God? No. They are simply saying that the evidence provided is not good enough therefore they cannot believe.

I would require proof that God exists. There is no proof. Therefore I don't need to have faith that God doesn't exist.

IF, on the other hand, you were providing good (reasonable) evidence for God and I choose not to believe then, yes, I would absolutely concede that I would be denying God in the face of evidence and that denial would be faith-based.

If you have no proof for a thing then I do not need faith to "believe" the non existence of that thing.

An atheist BELIEVES that, despite the evidence all around us of the wonder and complexity of creation, there is no creator, no force beyond our understanding which is responsible for it. That is as much a belief as a belief that such complexity and wonder must have a driving force.

ScumLord · 27-02-2015 05:34PM

katydid wrote: »

An atheist BELIEVES that, despite the evidence all around us of the wonder and complexity of creation, there is no creator, no force beyond our understanding which is responsible for it. That is as much a belief as a belief that such complexity and wonder must have a driving force.

Sorry but you're wrong. All the wonder that surrounds us has been shown to be a natural process, it doesn't need a creator or administrator. You can believe that something started off the universe, we can't actually prove otherwise at this stage but for anyone who understands the natural process it would seem more likely that there's another natural process beyond the big bang that we just don't know about yet.

Not accepting a story that appeared on the scene 3000 years ago about a god that's based on human kings isn't a believe, it's a dismissal.

Now you could say that I'm basically a lay man, I can't actually prove a lot of the more complicated science myself, I just believe the scientists and institutions are telling me the truth. But they have a track record, they've proved their abilities to me and it's more than a believe it's trust.

RikuoAmero · 27-02-2015 06:11PM

katydid wrote: »

An atheist BELIEVES that, despite the evidence all around us of the wonder and complexity of creation, there is no creator, no force beyond our understanding which is responsible for it. That is as much a belief as a belief that such complexity and wonder must have a driving force.

You're dead wrong here Katy.
Imagine I'm a member of the jury in a trial. A man has been accused of a crime. The prosecution are the people trying to convince me, and the other jury members, that the man is guilty of the crime. The prosecution uses arguments, reasoning, data and evidence to try to sway me to their side.
At the end of the trial, I and the other jury members go to deliberate. We come back out and I say "Not Guilty".
Note here that I am not saying "The man is innocent". If we were to say that, that would mean that we believe he didn't commit the crime.
Instead, juries say "Not guilty". That is juries saying that the prosecution did not convince them. The man very well could have actually committed the crime, but the prosecution did a piss-poor job of convincing us that he did.

That is what I am voting on when it comes to religion. I am listening to you (you as in theists who speak about their religion), I am examining the evidence and eventually I come back saying two things.
First, I say "Innocent" for your specific god/religion. When it comes to christianity, my mind's made up. It could change later on, but for now, I'm of the persuasion that the christian religion is indeed false, or innocent of the 'crime' of being true, to use my court room analogy.
When it comes to the notion of a god entity, as in a vague undefined god entity who started reality...I say "Not Guilty". I'm not convinced that there is, but neither can I entirely rule it out. Nor am I ruling out anything else that is also vague (it doesn't have to be an intelligent mind with a plan that started the universe, it could have been a mind without intelligence).

I'm not going to get into another argument about "the wonder and complexity of creation". That's TWO fallacies in there, I've debunked them before in this thread (well, in Part 1 of this thread).

Focus on these three words, Katy. I'm NOT CONVINCED. Those are very important words. It's not a belief system like you think, it's simply that arguments from people such as yourself have not convinced me.

ScumLord wrote:

All the wonder that surrounds us has been shown to be a natural process, it doesn't need a creator or administrator.

Not so much that, but rather that in order to recognise creation, recognise design, you logically need something uncreated/undesigned to compare and contrast it to. We only have the one universe (that we know of for a fact), so we lack the ability to compare and contrast. Is it designed or undesigned? We can't say yet at this stage. We lack the requisite information (just like if Katy were to show me a locked box that neither she nor I have the key for, but she keeps insisting that, despite never having opened it before, she knows what's inside).

katydid · 27-02-2015 08:17PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You're dead wrong here Katy.
Imagine I'm a member of the jury in a trial. A man has been accused of a crime. The prosecution are the people trying to convince me, and the other jury members, that the man is guilty of the crime. The prosecution uses arguments, reasoning, data and evidence to try to sway me to their side.
At the end of the trial, I and the other jury members go to deliberate. We come back out and I say "Not Guilty".
Note here that I am not saying "The man is innocent". If we were to say that, that would mean that we believe he didn't commit the crime.
Instead, juries say "Not guilty". That is juries saying that the prosecution did not convince them. The man very well could have actually committed the crime, but the prosecution did a piss-poor job of convincing us that he did.

That is what I am voting on when it comes to religion. I am listening to you (you as in theists who speak about their religion), I am examining the evidence and eventually I come back saying two things.
First, I say "Innocent" for your specific god/religion. When it comes to christianity, my mind's made up. It could change later on, but for now, I'm of the persuasion that the christian religion is indeed false, or innocent of the 'crime' of being true, to use my court room analogy.
When it comes to the notion of a god entity, as in a vague undefined god entity who started reality...I say "Not Guilty". I'm not convinced that there is, but neither can I entirely rule it out. Nor am I ruling out anything else that is also vague (it doesn't have to be an intelligent mind with a plan that started the universe, it could have been a mind without intelligence).

I'm not going to get into another argument about "the wonder and complexity of creation". That's TWO fallacies in there, I've debunked them before in this thread (well, in Part 1 of this thread).

Focus on these three words, Katy. I'm NOT CONVINCED. Those are very important words. It's not a belief system like you think, it's simply that arguments from people such as yourself have not convinced me.

Not so much that, but rather that in order to recognise creation, recognise design, you logically need something uncreated/undesigned to compare and contrast it to. We only have the one universe (that we know of for a fact), so we lack the ability to compare and contrast. Is it designed or undesigned? We can't say yet at this stage. We lack the requisite information (just like if Katy were to show me a locked box that neither she nor I have the key for, but she keeps insisting that, despite never having opened it before, she knows what's inside).

You are starting from a false premise; that we are arguing in a context of fact and reason. Hence the rest of your "argument" is pointless.

katydid · 27-02-2015 08:17PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Sorry but you're wrong. All the wonder that surrounds us has been shown to be a natural process,

Really? The scientists have explained the origin of life? When did that happen?

RikuoAmero · 27-02-2015 08:23PM

katydid wrote: »

You are starting from a false premise; that we are arguing in a context of fact and reason. Hence the rest of your "argument" is pointless.

Silly me, how could I forget? You're a proud walking and talking contradiction: you've said before in another thread you "know" God exists, and within this past week, you've said there is "no factual basis" for religion. So basically...you know this thing to be true (God exists) while acknowledging that there is no basis in fact for it to be true.
Yeah, I'm going to relearn the lesson I learned last time. I'm not going to continue this conversation.

ScumLord · 27-02-2015 08:26PM

katydid wrote: »

Really? The scientists have explained the origin of life? When did that happen?

The first signs of life on earth were about 4 million years ago. Although, that's just when we have evidence for life on earth, life could have formed sooner in other parts of the universe. Although there is a limit on how long life could be around for. The solar systems in our galaxy would have had to form, die and form again for their to even be the building blocks of life.

katydid · 27-02-2015 08:28PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The first signs of life on earth were about 4 million years ago. Although, that's just when we have evidence for life on earth, life could have formed sooner in other parts of the universe. Although there is a limit on how long life could be around for. The solar systems in our galaxy would have had to form, die and form again for their to even be the building blocks of life.

That would be a "they haven't", then...

katydid · 27-02-2015 08:29PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Silly me, how could I forget? You're a proud walking and talking contradiction: you've said before in another thread you "know" God exists, and within this past week, you've said there is "no factual basis" for religion. So basically...you know this thing to be true (God exists) while acknowledging that there is no basis in fact for it to be true.
Yeah, I'm going to relearn the lesson I learned last time. I'm not going to continue this conversation.

Better than working on a false premise. Probably wise.

RikuoAmero · 27-02-2015 08:44PM

katydid wrote: »

Better than working on a false premise. Probably wise.

I'll just say this and then walk off. Without logic or reason, you have no methods whatsoever to distinguish between true and false premises. None at all. Only whim, and that is useless.
If anyone else wants to educate Katy on why this is, feel free. I couldn't be bothered.

katydid · 27-02-2015 08:46PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'll just say this and then walk off. Without logic or reason, you have no methods whatsoever to distinguish between true and false premises. None at all. Only whim, and that is useless.
If anyone else wants to educate Katy on why this is, feel free. I couldn't be bothered.

Thanks, but I don't need to be educated - or patronised.

You're better off walking away if you can't understand what you're talking about.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments