Discussion Thread

[bennychico11]

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

 

I still think the world revolves around me. That you're all here to purely interact with me through my life. Sort of like The Truman Show...but on a greater scale.

 

[sarge87]

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

 

I still think the world revolves around me. That you're all here to purely interact with me through my life. Sort of like The Truman Show...but on a greater scale.

 

I knew it was something like that, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

[huskerjack23]

I'm an atheist.

 

It's also not a choice for me.

 

When I was christian, i denounced all of the other millions of gods because they were illogical. I just took another step with Yaweh.

 

It's not that he doesn't exist, it's that he can't. It defies logic. For an entity to defy logic and space and time and the other laws of the universe is unfathomable to me.

 

There are things that are extraordinary about this world. Awe-inspiring. Wonderous. Supernatural? Nope.

 

Science doesn't know all the answers, but they aren't unknowable.

 

I think you're getting hung up on words. Not a very persuasive argument. Of course a supernatural deity would defy human logic. And no he wouldn't 'exist' in the sense that you and I occupy space and time. But just like two-dimentional creatures denying the possibility of a three-dimentional being because it defies their logic would be absurd, a natural man denying the possibility of a supernatural entity simply because we can't fathom it would be equally absurd.

 

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

In a philosophical sense, we might be a big part of someone's imagination. That is unknowable. But, if I'm having that thought, I exist. Cogito ergo sum. Our existence is knowable.

 

Science proves nothing? Gravity. The laws of physics. Sure it proves nothing.

 

Alright, I should have been more specific. This argument basically boils down to christianity for most people in America so I'm going to argue against that. It would be absurd to argue against a possibility of an entity that exists outside of all known planes of existence. The law of infinity would say that. But, the god of the bible and all of the hypocrisy, the approval of slavery, genocide, oppression of women, substitutionary atonement, etc, it's all completely illogical coming from a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, loving god.

 

Why would you be for any of those things? It's evil.

[Husker_x]

I'm an atheist.

 

It's also not a choice for me.

 

When I was christian, i denounced all of the other millions of gods because they were illogical. I just took another step with Yaweh.

 

It's not that he doesn't exist, it's that he can't. It defies logic. For an entity to defy logic and space and time and the other laws of the universe is unfathomable to me.

 

There are things that are extraordinary about this world. Awe-inspiring. Wonderous. Supernatural? Nope.

 

Science doesn't know all the answers, but they aren't unknowable.

 

I think you're getting hung up on words. Not a very persuasive argument. Of course a supernatural deity would defy human logic. And no he wouldn't 'exist' in the sense that you and I occupy space and time. But just like two-dimentional creatures denying the possibility of a three-dimentional being because it defies their logic would be absurd, a natural man denying the possibility of a supernatural entity simply because we can't fathom it would be equally absurd.

 

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

In a philosophical sense, we might be a big part of someone's imagination. That is unknowable. But, if I'm having that thought, I exist. Cogito ergo sum. Our existence is knowable.

 

Science proves nothing? Gravity. The laws of physics. Sure it proves nothing.

 

Alright, I should have been more specific. This argument basically boils down to christianity for most people in America so I'm going to argue against that. It would be absurd to argue against a possibility of an entity that exists outside of all known planes of existence. The law of infinity would say that. But, the god of the bible and all of the hypocrisy, the approval of slavery, genocide, oppression of women, substitutionary atonement, etc, it's all completely illogical coming from a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, loving god.

 

Why would you be for any of those things? It's evil.

 

You're right. I can't prove that we're having this conversation right now. I can't prove that the entire world isn't a product of my own imagination. It may not be happening at all. I'll go ahead and sidestep Descartes––not really what we're debating.

 

Science proves neither gravity nor the laws of physics. It induces them based off previous evidence, but does not prove them. All scientists know and accept this. Simply because I throw an apple into the air nine times and it comes down, it does not necessarily follow that the tenth time I throw the apple up it will come down. Therefore all of us that love science and apply it do so essentially with the added baggage of presupposition. It doesn't mean science isn't useful, but it's not all encompassing, and considering the nature of the topic we're discussing, probably not useful in the traditional sense here.

 

In reverse, my being for or against any of the things you listed is irrelevant to the existence of God. I'm surprised you choose the word 'evil' for your position. It seems to me that if indeed the universe is self-creating and purely material then whatever actions happen in it are simply a matter of random chance and would be better seen as 'pleasant' or 'unpleasant' to our species. Regardless, I don't see how any event, pleasant or unpleasant to mankind, would affirm or deny the existence of God. I'm more interested in how and why we have the universe we do. Men like Stephen Hawking have demonstrated that it had a finite beginning, so something 'preexisted' it (quotes because I'm not sure we have a word that defines what we're describing). God may not be a highly scientific answer to the question, How did the Big Bang take place? But it seems possible that the universe was created by something.

[rawhide]

I've got a headache now. It's real.

 

In the immortal words of the Monkees "I'm a believer".

 

 

GBR

 

When in my younger days I proclaimed to be agnostic. But I found that for myself I didn't want to get splinters in my ass any more sitting on the fence.

 

Accounting and Philosophy both are baffling to me.

Consider the source, just a dumb old RN.

[huskerjack23]

I'm an atheist.

 

It's also not a choice for me.

 

When I was christian, i denounced all of the other millions of gods because they were illogical. I just took another step with Yaweh.

 

It's not that he doesn't exist, it's that he can't. It defies logic. For an entity to defy logic and space and time and the other laws of the universe is unfathomable to me.

 

There are things that are extraordinary about this world. Awe-inspiring. Wonderous. Supernatural? Nope.

 

Science doesn't know all the answers, but they aren't unknowable.

 

I think you're getting hung up on words. Not a very persuasive argument. Of course a supernatural deity would defy human logic. And no he wouldn't 'exist' in the sense that you and I occupy space and time. But just like two-dimentional creatures denying the possibility of a three-dimentional being because it defies their logic would be absurd, a natural man denying the possibility of a supernatural entity simply because we can't fathom it would be equally absurd.

 

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

In a philosophical sense, we might be a big part of someone's imagination. That is unknowable. But, if I'm having that thought, I exist. Cogito ergo sum. Our existence is knowable.

 

Science proves nothing? Gravity. The laws of physics. Sure it proves nothing.

 

Alright, I should have been more specific. This argument basically boils down to christianity for most people in America so I'm going to argue against that. It would be absurd to argue against a possibility of an entity that exists outside of all known planes of existence. The law of infinity would say that. But, the god of the bible and all of the hypocrisy, the approval of slavery, genocide, oppression of women, substitutionary atonement, etc, it's all completely illogical coming from a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, loving god.

 

Why would you be for any of those things? It's evil.

 

You're right. I can't prove that we're having this conversation right now. I can't prove that the entire world isn't a product of my own imagination. It may not be happening at all. I'll go ahead and sidestep Descartes––not really what we're debating.

 

Science proves neither gravity nor the laws of physics. It induces them based off previous evidence, but does not prove them. All scientists know and accept this. Simply because I throw an apple into the air nine times and it comes down, it does not necessarily follow that the tenth time I throw the apple up it will come down. Therefore all of us that love science and apply it do so essentially with the added baggage of presupposition. It doesn't mean science isn't useful, but it's not all encompassing, and considering the nature of the topic we're discussing, probably not useful in the traditional sense here.

 

In reverse, my being for or against any of the things you listed is irrelevant to the existence of God. I'm surprised you choose the word 'evil' for your position. It seems to me that if indeed the universe is self-creating and purely material then whatever actions happen in it are simply a matter of random chance and would be better seen as 'pleasant' or 'unpleasant' to our species. Regardless, I don't see how any event, pleasant or unpleasant to mankind, would affirm or deny the existence of God. I'm more interested in how and why we have the universe we do. Men like Stephen Hawking have demonstrated that it had a finite beginning, so something 'preexisted' it (quotes because I'm not sure we have a word that defines what we're describing). God may not be a highly scientific answer to the question, How did the Big Bang take place? But it seems possible that the universe was created by something.

 

The bolded has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Evidence = proof. How and when does it not do this? Especially with concepts and ideas that have been repeatedly tested and verified?

 

Science isn't all encompassing. But, when it disproves things like creationism, the great flood, parting the red sea, etc., the philosophies of people who take the bible for it's literal sense, are null.

 

Which God do you believe in? How are you defining God? The bible says all of these things and if you pick and choose your god, you believe in a different god than the bible does.

 

And to call the things that God does evil is calling god evil, not the universe. Being an atheist, I know these things aren't evil, just cold, emotionless, and indifferent. Would you condemn a human for all of the things that I listed? Are these things immoral for humans? Why does God get a pass?

 

The universe having a finite beginning doesn't mean the building blocks of the universe didn't exist. Science doesn't know the answers to this and it's unlikely that for many lifetimes it will know, but it's arrogant for religion to say that it knows the answers.

 

How DID the big bang take place? Did God make it? Most creationist arguments are that the universe needs a creator because everything needs a creator. Alright if everything needs a creator, who created God? If we were to infer that that's an unanswerable question, then why take that step? You can conclude that the origins of the universe is an unanswerable question. If we were to infer that God always existed, then why take that step? You can conclude that the universe always existed.

[Husker_x]

I'm an atheist.

 

It's also not a choice for me.

 

When I was christian, i denounced all of the other millions of gods because they were illogical. I just took another step with Yaweh.

 

It's not that he doesn't exist, it's that he can't. It defies logic. For an entity to defy logic and space and time and the other laws of the universe is unfathomable to me.

 

There are things that are extraordinary about this world. Awe-inspiring. Wonderous. Supernatural? Nope.

 

Science doesn't know all the answers, but they aren't unknowable.

 

I think you're getting hung up on words. Not a very persuasive argument. Of course a supernatural deity would defy human logic. And no he wouldn't 'exist' in the sense that you and I occupy space and time. But just like two-dimentional creatures denying the possibility of a three-dimentional being because it defies their logic would be absurd, a natural man denying the possibility of a supernatural entity simply because we can't fathom it would be equally absurd.

 

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

In a philosophical sense, we might be a big part of someone's imagination. That is unknowable. But, if I'm having that thought, I exist. Cogito ergo sum. Our existence is knowable.

 

Science proves nothing? Gravity. The laws of physics. Sure it proves nothing.

 

Alright, I should have been more specific. This argument basically boils down to christianity for most people in America so I'm going to argue against that. It would be absurd to argue against a possibility of an entity that exists outside of all known planes of existence. The law of infinity would say that. But, the god of the bible and all of the hypocrisy, the approval of slavery, genocide, oppression of women, substitutionary atonement, etc, it's all completely illogical coming from a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, loving god.

 

Why would you be for any of those things? It's evil.

 

You're right. I can't prove that we're having this conversation right now. I can't prove that the entire world isn't a product of my own imagination. It may not be happening at all. I'll go ahead and sidestep Descartes––not really what we're debating.

 

Science proves neither gravity nor the laws of physics. It induces them based off previous evidence, but does not prove them. All scientists know and accept this. Simply because I throw an apple into the air nine times and it comes down, it does not necessarily follow that the tenth time I throw the apple up it will come down. Therefore all of us that love science and apply it do so essentially with the added baggage of presupposition. It doesn't mean science isn't useful, but it's not all encompassing, and considering the nature of the topic we're discussing, probably not useful in the traditional sense here.

 

In reverse, my being for or against any of the things you listed is irrelevant to the existence of God. I'm surprised you choose the word 'evil' for your position. It seems to me that if indeed the universe is self-creating and purely material then whatever actions happen in it are simply a matter of random chance and would be better seen as 'pleasant' or 'unpleasant' to our species. Regardless, I don't see how any event, pleasant or unpleasant to mankind, would affirm or deny the existence of God. I'm more interested in how and why we have the universe we do. Men like Stephen Hawking have demonstrated that it had a finite beginning, so something 'preexisted' it (quotes because I'm not sure we have a word that defines what we're describing). God may not be a highly scientific answer to the question, How did the Big Bang take place? But it seems possible that the universe was created by something.

 

The bolded has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Evidence = proof. How and when does it not do this? Especially with concepts and ideas that have been repeatedly tested and verified?

 

Science isn't all encompassing. But, when it disproves things like creationism, the great flood, parting the red sea, etc., the philosophies of people who take the bible for it's literal sense, are null.

 

Which God do you believe in? How are you defining God? The bible says all of these things and if you pick and choose your god, you believe in a different god than the bible does.

 

And to call the things that God does evil is calling god evil, not the universe. Being an atheist, I know these things aren't evil, just cold, emotionless, and indifferent. Would you condemn a human for all of the things that I listed? Are these things immoral for humans? Why does God get a pass?

 

The universe having a finite beginning doesn't mean the building blocks of the universe didn't exist. Science doesn't know the answers to this and it's unlikely that for many lifetimes it will know, but it's arrogant for religion to say that it knows the answers.

 

How DID the big bang take place? Did God make it? Most creationist arguments are that the universe needs a creator because everything needs a creator. Alright if everything needs a creator, who created God? If we were to infer that that's an unanswerable question, then why take that step? You can conclude that the origins of the universe is an unanswerable question. If we were to infer that God always existed, then why take that step? You can conclude that the universe always existed.

 

To the bolded point, I think you've been misinformed. Proving something to be absolutely true is just not what science does. Yes, it does gather evidence from the natural world to form a theory, but it does not entail that the theory will always hold true. For example, take unicorns. Science has never found evidence for the unicorn. We've seen horses and zebras and all kinds of variations that would be a closely linked species if unicorns did exist, but we've never found them, or even fossils of them. Science would then make the generalized conclusion, There are no unicorns. This is a reasonable conclusion, but it's ultimately an induction, not proof. For proof scientists would have to observe all places at all times in the material universe and find them lacking unicorns, which it can't do.

 

Science does do a good job refuting creationism. The problem in the debate is creationists would have you think that all the observable things in the world (shifting plates, starlight, diversity of species) are essentially all in themselves miracles. Not very convincing, sure, but hard to argue against.

 

On morality, you may have just made my point for me. In a purely atheistic universe (which it very well may be, by the way), actions do not have an inherent moral value. They simply happen. Man gets on train. Lion takes down gazelle. Man shoots wife and three kids. Man watches TV. The only beings capable of assigning any meaning to any of these events are human beings. Biologists like Richard Dawkins would argue our morality comes through our evolution, but human beings can do another neat trick called metacognition. We can think about our thoughts (and emotions towards morality). We may feel guilt, but we can override that instinct. Given that we now in the present age as atheists would understand the pointlessness of our existence and our inevitable end as a species, these rules and morals seem more like guidelines.

 

Oh, out of curiosity, what would the building blocks of the universe be if there was no universe (or time for the universe to occupy, for that matter)?

[huskerjack23]

what are we debating here?

[Husker_x]

what are we debating here?

 

Good question.

 

That's what's so great about the whole God discussion. Pretty soon it's like the Vietnam of debate. No one knows how we got here, or why we're here, but we want to go home.

 

My basic point with the thread was wondering why atheists call themselves that instead of agnostics. Since no one really knows, making a hardline state of disbelief seems to be a hard position to argue.

[huskerjack23]

what are we debating here?

 

Good question.

 

That's what's so great about the whole God discussion. Pretty soon it's like the Vietnam of debate. No one knows how we got here, or why we're here, but we want to go home.

 

My basic point with the thread was wondering why atheists call themselves that instead of agnostics. Since no one really knows, making a hardline state of disbelief seems to be a hard position to argue.

This is my reasoning.

 

I denounced all other possible gods, spirits and what not when I was a christian, because they were illogical. I had an epiphany moment that the god of the bible is also illogical. When there's only one god for you and you discover that he's a fairy tale, you become an atheist. Simple as that.

 

I don't know if there could be a god but the belief is long gone.

[Husker_x]

what are we debating here?

 

Good question.

 

That's what's so great about the whole God discussion. Pretty soon it's like the Vietnam of debate. No one knows how we got here, or why we're here, but we want to go home.

 

My basic point with the thread was wondering why atheists call themselves that instead of agnostics. Since no one really knows, making a hardline state of disbelief seems to be a hard position to argue.

This is my reasoning.

 

I denounced all other possible gods, spirits and what not when I was a christian, because they were illogical. I had an epiphany moment that the god of the bible is also illogical. When there's only one god for you and you discover that he's a fairy tale, you become an atheist. Simple as that.

 

I don't know if there could be a god but the belief is long gone.

 

I don't meant to pile on a debate that seems to be fizzling down, but I do want to know what you think. When you say that the concept of a god is illogical, what is the standard that you use to make that assessment? How do you come to that conclusion? Even the hardest of hardline atheists admit that the origin of the universe is a complete mystery. Stephen Hawking again writes beautifully and brilliantly about the hairpin balance our universe demonstrates to support a sentient species like human beings. Do you have a better answer than an intelligent deity, or are you simply content with not having an answer?

[huskerjack23]

what are we debating here?

 

Good question.

 

That's what's so great about the whole God discussion. Pretty soon it's like the Vietnam of debate. No one knows how we got here, or why we're here, but we want to go home.

 

My basic point with the thread was wondering why atheists call themselves that instead of agnostics. Since no one really knows, making a hardline state of disbelief seems to be a hard position to argue.

This is my reasoning.

 

I denounced all other possible gods, spirits and what not when I was a christian, because they were illogical. I had an epiphany moment that the god of the bible is also illogical. When there's only one god for you and you discover that he's a fairy tale, you become an atheist. Simple as that.

 

I don't know if there could be a god but the belief is long gone.

 

I don't meant to pile on a debate that seems to be fizzling down, but I do want to know what you think. When you say that the concept of a god is illogical, what is the standard that you use to make that assessment? How do you come to that conclusion? Even the hardest of hardline atheists admit that the origin of the universe is a complete mystery. Stephen Hawking again writes beautifully and brilliantly about the hairpin balance our universe demonstrates to support a sentient species like human beings. Do you have a better answer than an intelligent deity, or are you simply content with not having an answer?

Epicurus' riddle.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

And this was written by a greek philosopher, WELL before judaism and christianity.

 

The god question is more about morals and ethics than it is about how the universe began, and I've decided that I'm not gonna take my worldview from a being that demands blind faith or be eternally damned, commands all kinds of immoral acts, and has absolutely NO evidence to even support its existence.

[Husker_x]

what are we debating here?

 

Good question.

 

That's what's so great about the whole God discussion. Pretty soon it's like the Vietnam of debate. No one knows how we got here, or why we're here, but we want to go home.

 

My basic point with the thread was wondering why atheists call themselves that instead of agnostics. Since no one really knows, making a hardline state of disbelief seems to be a hard position to argue.

This is my reasoning.

 

I denounced all other possible gods, spirits and what not when I was a christian, because they were illogical. I had an epiphany moment that the god of the bible is also illogical. When there's only one god for you and you discover that he's a fairy tale, you become an atheist. Simple as that.

 

I don't know if there could be a god but the belief is long gone.

 

I don't meant to pile on a debate that seems to be fizzling down, but I do want to know what you think. When you say that the concept of a god is illogical, what is the standard that you use to make that assessment? How do you come to that conclusion? Even the hardest of hardline atheists admit that the origin of the universe is a complete mystery. Stephen Hawking again writes beautifully and brilliantly about the hairpin balance our universe demonstrates to support a sentient species like human beings. Do you have a better answer than an intelligent deity, or are you simply content with not having an answer?

Epicurus' riddle.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

And this was written by a greek philosopher, WELL before judaism and christianity.

 

The god question is more about morals and ethics than it is about how the universe began, and I've decided that I'm not gonna take my worldview from a being that demands blind faith or be eternally damned, commands all kinds of immoral acts, and has absolutely NO evidence to even support its existence.

 

I like your answer.

 

But if there is a hole in Epicurus, it would have to be a semantic one. Or a much more basic question. Is the suffering man experiences evil? We could call death evil, but depending on how you look at it, it may be the very fact of our mortality that makes life what it is. If God exists and he created man with a limited timeline, how or why would we call this evil?

[huskerjack23]

what are we debating here?

 

Good question.

 

That's what's so great about the whole God discussion. Pretty soon it's like the Vietnam of debate. No one knows how we got here, or why we're here, but we want to go home.

 

My basic point with the thread was wondering why atheists call themselves that instead of agnostics. Since no one really knows, making a hardline state of disbelief seems to be a hard position to argue.

This is my reasoning.

 

I denounced all other possible gods, spirits and what not when I was a christian, because they were illogical. I had an epiphany moment that the god of the bible is also illogical. When there's only one god for you and you discover that he's a fairy tale, you become an atheist. Simple as that.

 

I don't know if there could be a god but the belief is long gone.

 

I don't meant to pile on a debate that seems to be fizzling down, but I do want to know what you think. When you say that the concept of a god is illogical, what is the standard that you use to make that assessment? How do you come to that conclusion? Even the hardest of hardline atheists admit that the origin of the universe is a complete mystery. Stephen Hawking again writes beautifully and brilliantly about the hairpin balance our universe demonstrates to support a sentient species like human beings. Do you have a better answer than an intelligent deity, or are you simply content with not having an answer?

Epicurus' riddle.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

And this was written by a greek philosopher, WELL before judaism and christianity.

 

The god question is more about morals and ethics than it is about how the universe began, and I've decided that I'm not gonna take my worldview from a being that demands blind faith or be eternally damned, commands all kinds of immoral acts, and has absolutely NO evidence to even support its existence.

 

I like your answer.

 

But if there is a hole in Epicurus, it would have to be a semantic one. Or a much more basic question. Is the suffering man experiences evil? We could call death evil, but depending on how you look at it, it may be the very fact of our mortality that makes life what it is. If God exists and he created man with a limited timeline, how or why would we call this evil?

You're not asking a good question. We know the definition of evil. The holocaust. Stuff like that.

 

Putting blind faith in the promise of eternal life and eternal damnation of those who have done us wrong, whilst living on earth to suffer, when there is absolutely no evidence that that being even exists, is mind-blowingly asinine.

[bennychico11]

related to the above thoughts...and on the side of the theists for a bit...I came across this video the other day which would argue for the theists:

 

2JgpARGvBnc

 

although who the boy is in the end can be debated.