Athiest in society

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: herm0016
the church of the FSM is a real, recognized religion with followers. I am a member of a local pastafarian group. it was not a book, it was a letter, and our bible was published sometime after the original letter to the Kansas school board. I think you are a hypocrite. you should do some research before you tell other to do it.

they turned it into a book tard

Way to unnecessarily bash another man of faith. He said his bible was published sometime after the original letter. Why do you feel so threatened by people who believe in a God? Is it because deep down inside you know that there is a God? That when you die you will have to answer in front of his noodily presence for your sins?

Stand firm with our al dente and toothsome Lord. Await sauce.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nik
Believing god does not exist = requires faith
Believing god does exist = requires faith
agnosticism = not believing either way, having no proof for either side of the spectrum.

Theists are just as silly as atheists.

OK so it's silly not to believe in a God created by a bunch of ancient sheep herders as the end all answer to questions they had about their existence and other mysterous?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
I think his point that when you take this in the sense of logic and science, if you believe in God you do so on faith because there has not been satisfactory proof of God. Likewise though, it is more or less impossible to prove that there isn't a God.

"Likewise, though", in the "sense of logic and science", there is zero faith involved in not believing in something that is impossible to prove.

Someday, I hope the stupidity of the your posted electrons comes back to haunt you. If you are then embarrassed, it will mean you have grown up.

Btw, I am a believer. Pure faith on my part. This does not compel me to accept your and Nik's stupidity and lack of any grasp of basic logic, though.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Nik
Believing god does not exist = requires faith
Believing god does exist = requires faith
agnosticism = not believing either way, having no proof for either side of the spectrum.

Wrong

Deciding God does not exist requires no faith. Logically, it requires only an acceptance of the preponderance of hard evidence. Nevertheless, I happen to believe in the divine. But I cannot prove this, nor would I try to convince any non-believer. My belief is based on faith, but I am perfectly comfortable in the company of atheists. Why the hell not?

It's the people who are so unsure of their faith that they need to try and convince total strangers of it who annoy the living f*ck out of me.

And it's the fundy facists who try to legislate the precepts of their faith onto others that scare and disgust me.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: IGBT
..I'll bet your an eco-theist.

:laugh:

Oh man, you don't think of anything else, do you? I can see your room - the walls have "eco-KOOK" and "eco-theist" scrawled all over them in pencil and crayon.

Seek help.

..ahh. a created worshiper. denies the existence of a creator but worships the created.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: IGBT
..I'll bet your an eco-theist.

:laugh:

Oh man, you don't think of anything else, do you? I can see your room - the walls have "eco-KOOK" and "eco-theist" scrawled all over them in pencil and crayon.

Seek help.

..ahh. a created worshiper. denies the existence of a creator but worships the created.

If only we all could be so credulous to worship bumper sticker-quality logical fallacies.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
I think his point that when you take this in the sense of logic and science, if you believe in God you do so on faith because there has not been satisfactory proof of God. Likewise though, it is more or less impossible to prove that there isn't a God.

"Likewise, though", in the "sense of logic and science", there is zero faith involved in not believing in something that is impossible to prove.

Someday, I hope the stupidity of the your posted electrons comes back to haunt you. If you are then embarrassed, it will mean you have grown up.

Btw, I am a believer. Pure faith on my part. This does not compel me to accept your and Nik's stupidity and lack of any grasp of basic logic, though.

I'm not really interested in arguing this since it's Nik's point, I just wanted to add a clarification as I had saw it. I think that there is a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God. Not believing in God can fall into the category as being agnostic as was defined by Nik (I think it was him) as neither believing that there is or is not a God. They have no opinion in the matter. Athiests not only not believe in God, but they believe that there is no God. The latter of this is a strict logical statement but there is no way to concretely affirm it currently. In this way, it takes a bit of belief to be an Athiest. But this is the same belief in saying that there are no magnetic monopoles. Our current theories assume this, but they would not be put out if they did exist. However, we currently cannot prove or disprove their existence. Or say string theory. Currently we do not have a way to test the validity of string theory but that may change with the LHC. While these assumptions are fairly strong and can be very justifiable in making them, there still is a modicum of belief or faith in them, though the words do not give the correct connotation in my opinion. I can not think of a better word than faith for it at the moment.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
I think his point that when you take this in the sense of logic and science, if you believe in God you do so on faith because there has not been satisfactory proof of God. Likewise though, it is more or less impossible to prove that there isn't a God.

"Likewise, though", in the "sense of logic and science", there is zero faith involved in not believing in something that is impossible to prove.

Someday, I hope the stupidity of the your posted electrons comes back to haunt you. If you are then embarrassed, it will mean you have grown up.

Btw, I am a believer. Pure faith on my part. This does not compel me to accept your and Nik's stupidity and lack of any grasp of basic logic, though.

I'm not really interested in arguing this since it's Nik's point, I just wanted to add a clarification as I had saw it. I think that there is a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God. Not believing in God can fall into the category as being agnostic as was defined by Nik (I think it was him) as neither believing that there is or is not a God. They have no opinion in the matter. Athiests not only not believe in God, but they believe that there is no God. The latter of this is a strict logical statement but there is no way to concretely affirm it currently. In this way, it takes a bit of belief to be an Athiest. But this is the same belief in saying that there are no magnetic monopoles. Our current theories assume this, but they would not be put out if they did exist. However, we currently cannot prove or disprove their existence. Or say string theory. Currently we do not have a way to test the validity of string theory but that may change with the LHC. While these assumptions are fairly strong and can be very justifiable in making them, there still is a modicum of belief or faith in them, though the words do not give the correct connotation in my opinion. I can not think of a better word than faith for it at the moment.

There is nothing in existance to suggest there is a "God(s)". Supposedly someone many millenia ago told someone there was and the idea just kinda stuck. You can't Prove a negative and neither do you have to Prove one. All Evidence shows absolutely no Proof of "God(s)", so not accepting Its'/Their existance is the only Logical Conclusion.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
I think his point that when you take this in the sense of logic and science, if you believe in God you do so on faith because there has not been satisfactory proof of God. Likewise though, it is more or less impossible to prove that there isn't a God.

"Likewise, though", in the "sense of logic and science", there is zero faith involved in not believing in something that is impossible to prove.

Someday, I hope the stupidity of the your posted electrons comes back to haunt you. If you are then embarrassed, it will mean you have grown up.

Btw, I am a believer. Pure faith on my part. This does not compel me to accept your and Nik's stupidity and lack of any grasp of basic logic, though.

I'm not really interested in arguing this since it's Nik's point, I just wanted to add a clarification as I had saw it. I think that there is a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God. Not believing in God can fall into the category as being agnostic as was defined by Nik (I think it was him) as neither believing that there is or is not a God. They have no opinion in the matter. Athiests not only not believe in God, but they believe that there is no God. The latter of this is a strict logical statement but there is no way to concretely affirm it currently. In this way, it takes a bit of belief to be an Athiest. But this is the same belief in saying that there are no magnetic monopoles. Our current theories assume this, but they would not be put out if they did exist. However, we currently cannot prove or disprove their existence. Or say string theory. Currently we do not have a way to test the validity of string theory but that may change with the LHC. While these assumptions are fairly strong and can be very justifiable in making them, there still is a modicum of belief or faith in them, though the words do not give the correct connotation in my opinion. I can not think of a better word than faith for it at the moment.

There is nothing in existance to suggest there is a "God(s)". Supposedly someone many millenia ago told someone there was and the idea just kinda stuck. You can't Prove a negative and neither do you have to Prove one. All Evidence shows absolutely no Proof of "God(s)", so not accepting Its'/Their existance is the only Logical Conclusion.

You can prove a negative, it's just generally more difficult. In this case it is pretty much stacked against being able to prove the negative by definition. However, not being able to prove that gods exist does not mean that they do not exist, that is a logical fallacy despite the reasonableness of such a conclusion. Being unable to prove their existence should bring you as far as agnosticism. Going to atheism requires the most imperceptible leap since it cannot be proven conclusively. Concluding that there isn't a God seems reasonable given the total lack of proof of his/her existence, but I do not know if I would label it as being the strictly logical one.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
I think his point that when you take this in the sense of logic and science, if you believe in God you do so on faith because there has not been satisfactory proof of God. Likewise though, it is more or less impossible to prove that there isn't a God.

"Likewise, though", in the "sense of logic and science", there is zero faith involved in not believing in something that is impossible to prove.

Someday, I hope the stupidity of the your posted electrons comes back to haunt you. If you are then embarrassed, it will mean you have grown up.

Btw, I am a believer. Pure faith on my part. This does not compel me to accept your and Nik's stupidity and lack of any grasp of basic logic, though.

I'm not really interested in arguing this since it's Nik's point, I just wanted to add a clarification as I had saw it. I think that there is a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God. Not believing in God can fall into the category as being agnostic as was defined by Nik (I think it was him) as neither believing that there is or is not a God. They have no opinion in the matter. Athiests not only not believe in God, but they believe that there is no God. The latter of this is a strict logical statement but there is no way to concretely affirm it currently. In this way, it takes a bit of belief to be an Athiest. But this is the same belief in saying that there are no magnetic monopoles. Our current theories assume this, but they would not be put out if they did exist. However, we currently cannot prove or disprove their existence. Or say string theory. Currently we do not have a way to test the validity of string theory but that may change with the LHC. While these assumptions are fairly strong and can be very justifiable in making them, there still is a modicum of belief or faith in them, though the words do not give the correct connotation in my opinion. I can not think of a better word than faith for it at the moment.

There is nothing in existance to suggest there is a "God(s)". Supposedly someone many millenia ago told someone there was and the idea just kinda stuck. You can't Prove a negative and neither do you have to Prove one. All Evidence shows absolutely no Proof of "God(s)", so not accepting Its'/Their existance is the only Logical Conclusion.

You can prove a negative, it's just generally more difficult. In this case it is pretty much stacked against being able to prove the negative by definition. However, not being able to prove that gods exist does not mean that they do not exist, that is a logical fallacy despite the reasonableness of such a conclusion. Being unable to prove their existence should bring you as far as agnosticism. Going to atheism requires the most imperceptible leap since it cannot be proven conclusively. Concluding that there isn't a God seems reasonable given the total lack of proof of his/her existence, but I do not know if I would label it as being the strictly logical one.

It is not a "leap". Saying there is a "God(s)" is the Leap called Faith.

 

[Aberforth]

First of all God can be seen even in this life, it is 100% possible. If God exists you must seek him otherwise it is better not to believe. However seeing God does not mean you can draw blind conclusions about his nature. Atheism is nothing but a incapacity or a poor effort by undeveloped minds to grasp the higher truths of nature because these guys demand proof instead of finding the truth themselves which shows how poor and degenerated their minds are. I believe in Evolution, yes I think Man has evolved from monkeys but I also think atheists are devolving.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
First of all God can be seen even in this life, it is 100% possible. If God exists you must seek him otherwise it is better not to believe. However seeing God does not mean you can draw blind conclusions about his nature. Atheism is nothing but a incapacity or a poor effort by undeveloped minds to grasp the higher truths of nature because these guys demand proof instead of finding the truth themselves which shows how poor and degenerated their minds are. I believe in Evolution, yes I think Man has evolved from monkeys but I also think atheists are devolving.

Negative. There is nothing to find. All you got is the word of people Past and Present. No more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

[oddyager]

Some of my friends go to church on Sundays. They believe in the afterlife, too. None of them value that over our friendship. Quite frank this has never come up as a topic of conversation because between all of us it was irrelevant to how we feel about each other. They have their own set of beliefs just like how I have my own and we respect each other for that.

 

[Ryan]

Memorial Service - H. L. Mencken:

All these were once gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Jahveh himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute:

Resheph
Anath
Ashtoreth
El
Nergal
Nebo
Ninib
Melek
Ahijah
Isis
Ptah
Anubis
Baal
Astarte
Hadad
Addu
Shalem
Dagon
Sharrab
Yau
Amon-Re
Osiris
Sebek
MolechBilé
Ler
Arianrod
Morrigu
Govannon
Gunfled
Sokk-mimi
Memetona
Dagda
Robigus
Pluto
Ops
Meditrina
Vesta
Tilmun
Ogyrvan
Dea Dia
Ceros
Vaticanus
Edulia
Adeona
Iuno Lucina
Saturn
Furrina
Vediovis
Consus
Cronos
Enki
Engurra
Belus
Dimmer
Mu-ul-lil
Ubargisi
Ubilulu
Gasan lil
U-dimmer-an-kia
Enurestu
U-sab-sib
Kerridwen
Pwyll
Tammuz
Venus
Bau
Mulu-hursang
Anu
Beltis
Nusku
U-Mersi
Beltu
Dumu-zi-abzu
Kuski-banda
Sin
Abil Addu
Apsu
Dagan
Elali
Isum
Mami
Nin-man
Zaraqu
Suqamunu
Zagaga
Gwydion
Manawyddan
Nuada Argetlam
Tagd
Goibniu
Odin
Llaw Gyffes
Lleu
Ogma
Mider
Rigantona
Marzin
Mars
Kaawanu Ni-zu
Sahi
Aa
Allatu
Jupiter
Cunina
Potina
Statilinus
Diana of Ephesus
Nin-azu
Lugal-Amarada
Zer-panitu
Merodach
U-ki
Dauke
Gasan-abzu
Elum
U-Tin-dir-ki
Marduk
Nin-lil-la
Nin
Persephone
Istar
Lagas
U-urugal
Sirtumu
Ea
Nirig
Nebo
Samas
Ma-banba-anna
En-Mersi
Amurru
Assur
Aku
Qarradu
Ura-gala
Ueras

You may think I spoof. That I invent the names. I do not. Ask the rector to lend you any good treatise on comparative religion: You will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest standing and dignity--gods of civilized peoples--worshiped and believed in by millions. All were theoretically omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal. And all are dead.

I see religious life in the same context: One of death - dead.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Nik
Believing god does not exist = requires faith
Believing god does exist = requires faith
agnosticism = not believing either way, having no proof for either side of the spectrum.

Theists are just as silly as atheists.

Believing Santa Claus does not exist = requires faith
Believing Santa Claus does exist = requires faith
agnosticism = not believing either way, having no proof for either side of the spectrum.

So if I need faith to believe that gods don't exist, you need faith to believe Santa doesn't exist, along with all the other gods besides yours, the FSM, Bigfoot, UFOs, your doppleganger, etc? How does your soul hold so much faith?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Memorial Service - H. L. Mencken:

All these were once gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Jahveh himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute:

Resheph
Anath
Ashtoreth
El
Nergal
Nebo
Ninib
Melek
Ahijah
Isis
Ptah
Anubis
Baal
Astarte
Hadad
Addu
Shalem
Dagon
Sharrab
Yau
Amon-Re
Osiris
Sebek
MolechBilé
Ler
Arianrod
Morrigu
Govannon
Gunfled
Sokk-mimi
Memetona
Dagda
Robigus
Pluto
Ops
Meditrina
Vesta
Tilmun
Ogyrvan
Dea Dia
Ceros
Vaticanus
Edulia
Adeona
Iuno Lucina
Saturn
Furrina
Vediovis
Consus
Cronos
Enki
Engurra
Belus
Dimmer
Mu-ul-lil
Ubargisi
Ubilulu
Gasan lil
U-dimmer-an-kia
Enurestu
U-sab-sib
Kerridwen
Pwyll
Tammuz
Venus
Bau
Mulu-hursang
Anu
Beltis
Nusku
U-Mersi
Beltu
Dumu-zi-abzu
Kuski-banda
Sin
Abil Addu
Apsu
Dagan
Elali
Isum
Mami
Nin-man
Zaraqu
Suqamunu
Zagaga
Gwydion
Manawyddan
Nuada Argetlam
Tagd
Goibniu
Odin
Llaw Gyffes
Lleu
Ogma
Mider
Rigantona
Marzin
Mars
Kaawanu Ni-zu
Sahi
Aa
Allatu
Jupiter
Cunina
Potina
Statilinus
Diana of Ephesus
Nin-azu
Lugal-Amarada
Zer-panitu
Merodach
U-ki
Dauke
Gasan-abzu
Elum
U-Tin-dir-ki
Marduk
Nin-lil-la
Nin
Persephone
Istar
Lagas
U-urugal
Sirtumu
Ea
Nirig
Nebo
Samas
Ma-banba-anna
En-Mersi
Amurru
Assur
Aku
Qarradu
Ura-gala
Ueras

You may think I spoof. That I invent the names. I do not. Ask the rector to lend you any good treatise on comparative religion: You will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest standing and dignity--gods of civilized peoples--worshiped and believed in by millions. All were theoretically omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal. And all are dead.

I see religious life in the same context: One of death - dead.

:shocked:
Wow.
I wonder if they all at least referred to their deities by the proper name. Too often, everyone seems to refer to the Christian one simply as "God." Real creative, no?

"God, you there?"
"Yes, what is it, Human?"
"I....I have a name, could you call me that?"
"Um, no. So what did you want, Human?"

I loved one site I saw a few days ago, concerning why you should believe in God. It then proceeded to outline the reasons why the Christian one was "better" than the others, like it was some kind of cereal on a grocery store shelf, something to be chosen because it was more delicious than the rest. Apparently this divine cosmic bearer of truth needs a good marketing department.

 

[DangerAardvark]

I believe he prefers Mr. God. Or Your Royal Godness.

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, Dea Dia, I think I had that at a Mexican Restaurant once. Not bad as I recall.