How is atheism more rational than deism?

[Hayabusa Rider]

lol. My proof is sufficient for anyone intelligent enough to know that all religions are bullshit. But, I'll allow you to continue to dance in your cesspool of stupidity.

LOL, you set the standard for intelligence?

 

[Perknose]

If you don't believe in a god or gods then you are an atheist, its as simple as that.

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

 

[GaryJohnson]

LOL, you set the standard for intelligence?

Who's more intelligent: the person intentionally saying something stupid, or the person who doesn't recognize that intent?

He's an obvious troll. Everyone knows this.

His intent is to get attention. Which is what you're giving him.

 

[Sclamoz]

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

Incorrect.

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[GaryJohnson]

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

Isn't agnosticism also faith based? You have faith that there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. Maybe there is.

The rationality of the belief of an individual is entirely dependent upon the perceptions of the individual. A deist perceives God, an atheist perceives there isn't one, and an agnostic perceives there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. All are equally rational.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who's more intelligent: the person intentionally saying something stupid, or the person who doesn't recognize that intent?

He's an obvious troll. Everyone knows this.

His intent is to get attention. Which is what you're giving him.

Of course he's trolling. He's one of the most entertaining people on the boards. Everyone knows this.

 

[Perknose]

Isn't agnosticism also faith based? You have faith that there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. Maybe there is.

If there is, present it here, either way.

You can't, either way, which is my point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Isn't agnosticism also faith based? You have faith that there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. Maybe there is.

The rationality of the belief of an individual is entirely dependent upon the perceptions of the individual. A deist perceives God, an atheist perceives there isn't one, and an agnostic perceives there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. All are equally rational.

Since you've defined all this as faith, where does the person who does not make a claim one way or another because he's uncertain fit in?

 

[Perknose]

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

Incorrect.

Really?

Please highlight the words in my statement, any of them, which you consider incorrect, or admit that you misunderstood what I said and can't.

 

[GaryJohnson]

If there is, present it here, either way.

You can't, either way, which is my point.

My point is that because you don't perceive something as one way or the other acting rationally means you are responding with logic and reason to that perception.

Ask a deist or an atheist, and they can back their rationality up with their perceptions. Is it impossible for them to perceive something that you can't perceive?

 

[Sclamoz]

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

You said:

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

I'm an atheist, I don't know for a fact that there is no god/gods or santa claus or leprechauns. But I don't consider these ideas any more valid than the ravings of a schizophrenic standing on a street corner as there is no evidence for any of it. Could all of it be true? Sure, but without any evidence its not worth considering.

Its a complete mischaracterization that atheists claim to know for a fact that there is no god or gods.

Agnostics consider the chance that beings they can't prove exist to b the same as the chance that they don't.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Since you've defined all this as faith, where does the person who does not make a claim one way or another because he's uncertain fit in?

That person has faith that their perceptions are accurate.

 

[MJinZ]

Isn't agnosticism also faith based? You have faith that there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. Maybe there is.

The rationality of the belief of an individual is entirely dependent upon the perceptions of the individual. A deist perceives God, an atheist perceives there isn't one, and an agnostic perceives there isn't enough evidence to go one way or the other. All are equally rational.

No, Agnosticism is *lack* of faith. It is the understanding that truth values of certain things can't exactly be ascertained to complete certainty by the limitations of human comprehension and observation.

Atheism is putting complete faith in humanity's intelligence and perception - aka science.

Religions put complete faith into a higher power for being incapable of actualizing our own intelligence and perception - or lack thereof.

Agnostics recognize that religiousness serve a purpose - an important one at that, to give hope and structure to humans who can not otherwise put that same faith in their own abilities. We also recognize that science arguably serves a greater purpose, one to understanding ourselves and our universe.

Far more importantly, Agnostics recognize the great potential hubris that is present in all of us gifted with intelligence. As well as the fundamental disconnect between scientific atheists who live out their lives while professing their lives to be meaningless.

In any case, we are better than you because we are wiser than you. ()

 

[Soltis]

IMO a better question than what created what is; Once things exist/are alive, why do they age and why do they die?

If the universe or such brought something into existence, why cause that thing to un-exist? why create it all?

Because everything that is alive eventually dies, I can't help but feel that there is some sort of purpose in death since the universe or such has made it so inevitable.

Death is no more avoidable than moving forward in time, and I can only guess that anything that has overcome death has overcome time as well, which would be pretty much impossible for any of us to really understand since we exist in a universe build upon time and death.

Considering this it would seem anything that is in eternity and beyond death is beyond life too, but if I had to guess I would say that is where our current lives come to matter, if we take our knowledge and perceptions with us after we die.

It's this chain of thought that brings me to believe in a "life" after death and an entity that probably set our universe into motion.

To be clear though, I do not deny that I too am a fool and that I know a fraction of a fraction of nothing when compared to all the information, knowledge, wisdom, and experiences that exist in the universe. I simply choose to continue to move forward and take into myself things that seek to improve my outlook on life and my inevitable death.

 

[Tristicus]

If you don't believe in a god or gods then you are an atheist, its as simple as that. I don't go around calling myself one either except in discussions like this but that's what atheism is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM

Except that I do believe there is something there.

lol. My proof is sufficient for anyone intelligent enough to know that all religions are bullshit. But, I'll allow you to continue to dance in your cesspool of stupidity.

Thanks for the proof.
Oh wait.

prove there is

doesn#'t matter in the end. whether you believe in the silver fox or not, or whether he exists or not - you won't see it during your life without undergoing an acid trip while seeing your grandpa so what difference does it make?

unless, you need something like that to make you *not* do nasty things to your fellow man. you need to be afraid of the boogeyman and what he'll do to you to be a decent person. if that's the case, there's something wrong with you.

religion didn't create morality

Never said there was for sure. Nobody can be objectively certain one way or the other. I choose to believe there is. And I don't see anybody in this thread that said religion created morality- however, Christian values are (inspired) the basis of American society, and Christian values are good rules to live by. And no, I don't call myself a Christian.

I changed it back

:awe:

 

[Sclamoz]

Except that I do believe there is something there.

But you don't believe everything else is?

 

[MJinZ]

Except that I do believe there is something there.



Thanks for the proof.
Oh wait.



Never said there was for sure. Nobody can be objectively certain one way or the other. I choose to believe there is. And I don't see anybody in this thread that said religion created morality- however, Christian values are (inspired) the basis of American society, and Christian values are good rules to live by. And no, I don't call myself a Christian.



:awe:

Have you ever taken an ethics class?

One of the first arguments we learned was a counter to the Golden rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Please, all sadomasochistic rapists, spread your seeds to all. For yes, you should unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I won't mention again that morals existed years before any Jew or Christian existed. Of course, if white Christians can't even understand their Jesus was a brown middle-easterner, how can they possibly realize that morals and ethics were complex points of study in Ancient China or Greece that predated their religion?

 

[Tristicus]

But you don't believe everything else is?

If you can't even understand my elementary posts where I've clearly explained what I believe, I feel bad for you.

Have you ever taken an ethics class?

One of the first arguments we learned was a counter to the Golden rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Please, all sadomasochistic rapists, spread your seeds to all. For yes, you should unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I won't mention again that morals existed years before any Jew or Christian existed. Of course, if white Christians can't even understand their Jesus was a brown middle-easterner, how can they possibly realize that morals and ethics are complex points of study in Ancient China or Greece?

You can also take the bible and stretch it to say that you should kill everyone, but if you don't actually read and understand what the bible says as a whole, you're then lost, aren't you?

 

[GaryJohnson]

It is the understanding that truth values of certain things can't exactly be ascertained to complete certainty by the limitations of human comprehension and observation.

Can you present evidence here that the "truth values of certain things can't exactly be ascertained to complete certainty by the limitations of human comprehension and observation"? Why are you sure they can't be?

What I'm really getting at here, is to say that atheists and deists are more irrational than agnostics while they are, just like an agnostic, acting upon their perceptions is incorrect.

 

[Perknose]

If you don't believe in a God but make allowance for the possibility because you realize you don't and can't really know then you are an Agnostic.

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

Incorrect.

Really?

Please highlight the words in my statement, any of them, which you consider incorrect, or admit that you misunderstood what I said and can't.

You said: [And here you simply quote the same statement I made again]



I'm an atheist, I don't know for a fact that there is no god/gods or santa claus or leprechauns. But I don't consider these ideas any more valid than the ravings of a schizophrenic standing on a street corner as there is no evidence for any of it. Could all of it be true? Sure, but without any evidence its not worth considering.

Its a complete mischaracterization that atheists claim to know for a fact that there is no god or gods.

Agnostics consider the chance that beings they can't prove exist to b the same as the chance that they don't.

Completely non-responsive answer. You said my statement were INCORRECT. I challenged you to highlight any part of my statement which was incorrect or admit that you misunderstood it.

You did NEITHER! In fact, you CAN'T back up you claim that my statement was incorrect because it is not in any way.

You then go on to ramble about atheists. PLEASE SHOW ME IN MY STATEMENT WHERE I TALK ABOUT ATHEISTS, SPARKY!

Then you top it all off with yet another patently WRONG statement. Agnostics DON'T "consider the chance that beings they can't prove exist to b the same as the chance that they don't", they don't apply any ratings system to those chances at all, let alone say the chances of existence ARE EQUAL to the chances of non-existence, they merely admit of the possibility of the existence of a deity, THAT'S ALL.

You have sloppy, muddled thinking. It's irritating.

NOW, you have called my quoted statement at the top INCORRECT. Again, admit your error or prove it. :twisted:

 

[Nemesis 1]

I am sorry but you may not agree. Because the question your asking tho good any meaningful . A better question one has to ask self. Is why do we have isms

After all the discussion you will have the same outcome based on bias. But if you ask yourself why do I have isms in my life . This really is the core . In answering that question truethfully and correctly and you have reasoned it out. You will not be the same person that asked the question. Why is their isms and find the ans.

 

[JSt0rm]

Is this going to be another post-and-run by Anarchist420?

Has he really brought anything interesting to the table here? lmao.

 

[Sclamoz]

Completely non-responsive answer. You said my statement were INCORRECT. I challenged you to highlight any part of my statement which was incorrect or admit that you misunderstood it.

You did NEITHER! In fact, you CAN'T back up you claim that my statement was incorrect because it is not in any way.

You then go on to ramble about atheists. PLEASE SHOW ME IN MY STATEMENT WHERE I TALK ABOUT ATHEISTS, SPARKY!

Dude, look at what you said above:

If you don't believe in "God" and you categorically deny that possibility because you think you have somehow done the logically impossible and proved a negative, that "God" doesn't exist, then, ironically, you are just as "faith-based" in your thinking as the holiest of rollers!

You responded to my comment about atheists, it was obvious that was what your comment was about.

Then you top it all off with yet another patently WRONG statement. Agnostics DON'T "consider the chance that beings they can't prove exist to b the same as the chance that they don't", they don't apply any ratings system to those chances at all, let alone say the chances of existence ARE EQUAL to the chances of non-existence, they merely admit of the possibility of the existence of a deity, THAT'S ALL.

This is the point I've been explaining to you, but you are to thick to get. I'm an atheist, I will never ever say its impossible that god/gods exist. I will say since there is no evidence for their existence then there is no point to considering it anymore than considering the chance of a dragon living at the bottom of the ocean, its stupid and pointless.

An agnostic doesn't take a position one way or the other and stands in the middle and doesn't choose sides. The Agnostics position is such things may exist or they may not but without evidence we can't know one way or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

You have sloppy, muddled thinking. It's irritating.

NOW, you have called my quoted statement at the top INCORRECT. Again, admit your error or prove it. :twisted:

I already did.

 

[borosp1]

Prove to me there isn't and can be no God.

Its the same as 'prove there is a god"

The funny thing about all religion is everyone who believes in whatever religion they believe in have to follow some so called rules in order to get to the front of the line when they die. The rules are different for whatever religion you believe in so ever religion believes the other non believers will go to hell.

Religion is the reason most wars start.... And from observation the less educated one is the more fanatical in religion they become. Its hard arguing with someone so set in there ways in believing in fairy tales and not facts!

 

[Throckmorton]

Deism means conjuring up some far-fetched idea, and then treating that idea as fact. Atheism is simply not believing in things that have no evidence or sign of existing.

If you understand the roots of religion, it becomes much easier to realize why and how people come up with these ideas like "deism" and that it's just a side effect of how the human brain operates.