Is there a god or are we really advanced monkeys????

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Maybe God made us come from monkeys?

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Atheists don't set out to prove there is not a God (that's impossible, just like trying to prove there are no fairies), they basically require proof of one (which there is none so far).

A lot of atheists would disagree with you, including at least some in this thread:

Originally posted by: chambersc
Atheism is the positive affirmation that no god exists. There is no proof either way so the issue is black and white -- either your have the faith in a higher power or not. Agnosticism is just a cop out.

More to the point:

Atheism

n.

1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Let me put it more to the point, Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a God. That's different than, a belief there is no God.

QFT

The fact that most of the people in this thread likely assume atheism always means strong atheism, and know nothing of weak atheism, shows the futility of having this argument in ATOT.

 

[Eeezee]

I'm sorry, but why can't both statements be true? God can be responsible for the universe or creating the original forms of life from which we evolved.

 

[JASANITY]

the simple fact that no in-betweeners are alive today is proof enough we are not monkeys. use some commom sense!

 

[LeadMagnet]

humans and chimps evolved from the same creature. And yea god did create the universe about 13.5BN years ago.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
This from someone who defines God not as a supreme being but as "God is everything and everything is God". You're the last person who should be nitpicking definitions.

Huh? You might want to give that some thought. The supreme being (if such a thing exists) by definition must be the embodiment of everything. The concept of your bearded grandfather on a throne in the sky is for the ignorant, believers and non-believers alike.

That's beside the point. You're berating atheists for commonly having a belief which differs from the minority belief defined by the dictionary. Meanwhile your definition of God is different from the norm as well. Who knows, perhaps you think you're God (in which case you should smite the heathen website dictionary.com 😛) since you get to make up your own definitions and insult people who use the different ones which they're accustomed to that are in dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

god Audio pronunciation of "god" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Note that your definition is missing...

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
This from someone who defines God not as a supreme being but as "God is everything and everything is God". You're the last person who should be nitpicking definitions.

Huh? You might want to give that some thought. The supreme being (if such a thing exists) by definition must be the embodiment of everything. The concept of your bearded grandfather on a throne in the sky is for the ignorant, believers and non-believers alike.

If I were you I would have given up responding about mid-way through the second page. :laugh:
The concepts to which you refer require the ability to extend one's perspective outside of the personal and into the universal. Such a shift is not easily accomplished through a few words exchanged on an internet message board. Some obviously get it and some obviously don't.
But really, :thumbsup: for trying. My patience is usually not that good.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
This from someone who defines God not as a supreme being but as "God is everything and everything is God". You're the last person who should be nitpicking definitions.

Huh? You might want to give that some thought. The supreme being (if such a thing exists) by definition must be the embodiment of everything. The concept of your bearded grandfather on a throne in the sky is for the ignorant, believers and non-believers alike.

That's beside the point. You're berating atheists for commonly having a belief which differs from the minority belief defined by the dictionary. Meanwhile your definition of God is different from the norm as well. Who knows, perhaps you think you're God (in which case you should smite the heathen website dictionary.com 😛) since you get to make up your own definitions and insult people who use the different ones which they're accustomed to that are in dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

god Audio pronunciation of "god" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Note that your definition is missing...

No, it's right there as the very first defintion, which I have bolded for your reading convenience.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Atheists don't set out to prove there is not a God (that's impossible, just like trying to prove there are no fairies), they basically require proof of one (which there is none so far).

A lot of atheists would disagree with you, including at least some in this thread:

Originally posted by: chambersc
Atheism is the positive affirmation that no god exists. There is no proof either way so the issue is black and white -- either your have the faith in a higher power or not. Agnosticism is just a cop out.

More to the point:

Atheism

n.

1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Let me put it more to the point, Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a God. That's different than, a belief there is no God.

QFT

The fact that most of the people in this thread likely assume atheism always means strong atheism, and know nothing of weak atheism, shows the futility of having this argument in ATOT.

There is no such thing as a "strong" athiest or a "weak" athiest. If you deny the existence of God then you are an athiest. If you have doubts about the existence of God then you are agnostic.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
That's beside the point. You're berating atheists for commonly having a belief which differs from the minority belief defined by the dictionary. Meanwhile your definition of God is different from the norm as well. Who knows, perhaps you think you're God (in which case you should smite the heathen website dictionary.com 😛) since you get to make up your own definitions and insult people who use the different ones which they're accustomed to that are in dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

god Audio pronunciation of "god" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Note that your definition is missing...

No, it's right there as the very first defintion, which I have bolded for your reading convenience.

I'm not seeing "encompassing everything" anywhere. Your conjecture that a deity must encompass everything is just that - your conjecture. It isn't in the definition.

Originally posted by: tweakmm
If I were you I would have given up responding about mid-way through the second page. :laugh:
The concepts to which you refer require the ability to extend one's perspective outside of the personal and into the universal. Such a shift is not easily accomplished through a few words exchanged on an internet message board. Some obviously get it and some obviously don't.
But really, :thumbsup: for trying. My patience is usually not that good.

Yep, some of us are difficult/impossible to convert 😉

Originally posted by: Satchel
There is no such thing as a "strong" athiest or a "weak" athiest. If you deny the existence of God then you are an athiest. If you have doubts about the existence of God then you are agnostic.

Do you deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? In all seriousness, it's a pretty ridiculous concept. A deity made of pasta and meatballs and such (wonder if there's any parmesan?)... No, you simply don't give it much thought. As with everything else you can't see or hear, you file it away in your brain's "Vague possibilities, proof needed" cabinet and are done with it. Yet the religious beliefs many were brought up with, no different than the FSM, are in the "prove me wrong, biatch!" cabinet. A misplaced file, surely...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
That's beside the point. You're berating atheists for commonly having a belief which differs from the minority belief defined by the dictionary. Meanwhile your definition of God is different from the norm as well. Who knows, perhaps you think you're God (in which case you should smite the heathen website dictionary.com 😛) since you get to make up your own definitions and insult people who use the different ones which they're accustomed to that are in dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

god Audio pronunciation of "god" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Note that your definition is missing...

No, it's right there as the very first defintion, which I have bolded for your reading convenience.

I'm not seeing "encompassing everything" anywhere. Your conjecture that a deity must encompass everything is just that - your conjecture. It isn't in the definition.

Originally posted by: tweakmm
If I were you I would have given up responding about mid-way through the second page. :laugh:
The concepts to which you refer require the ability to extend one's perspective outside of the personal and into the universal. Such a shift is not easily accomplished through a few words exchanged on an internet message board. Some obviously get it and some obviously don't.
But really, :thumbsup: for trying. My patience is usually not that good.

Yep, some of us are difficult/impossible to convert 😉

Originally posted by: Satchel
There is no such thing as a "strong" athiest or a "weak" athiest. If you deny the existence of God then you are an athiest. If you have doubts about the existence of God then you are agnostic.

Do you deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? In all seriousness, it's a pretty ridiculous concept. A deity made of pasta and meatballs and such (wonder if there's any parmesan?)... No, you simply don't give it much thought. As with everything else you can't see or hear, you file it away in your brain's "Vague possibilities, proof needed" cabinet and are done with it. Yet the religious beliefs many were brought up with, no different than the FSM, are in the "prove me wrong, biatch!" cabinet. A misplaced file, surely...

It's not an issue of conversion. The issue is that you seem to be completely and hopelessly unable to distinguish between definition #1 and definitions #2 and #3. This willful lack of comprehension on your part is what causes you to accept the validity of the flying spaghetti monster straw man.

edit: Oh yeah, to answer the "encompassing everything" comment. Why don't you look up the definitions of perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient? It would help your argument if you would get a fscking clue what you're talking about.

 

[CKent]

Really, if you can't concede that your definition of God differs from the dictionary's, I don't think we can take this conversation any farther. You've rejected reality at this point and substituted your own 😉 I've already stated that my definition of atheism differs from the dictionary's. It's not that hard, try it.

I brought up FSM not to ridicule anyone or knock down a strawman, only to demonstrate a viewpoint.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Really, if you can't concede that your definition of God differs from the dictionary's, I don't think we can take this conversation any farther. You've rejected reality at this point and substituted your own 😉 I've already stated that my definition of atheism differs from the dictionary's. It's not that hard, try it.

I brought up FSM not to ridicule anyone or knock down a strawman, only to demonstrate a viewpoint.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Well, it seems like this thread got off to a great start! What has been on my mind for a while is not the question if God exsists, but what is God? I am pretty damn sure that God isn't this peice of popcorn I am about to eat or the coke sitting in front of me. So, what is God exactly? Don't give me some crap how he graced you with his presence or this one trip you had on your 24-hour acid binge..

Vic, you want to give it a shot? You haven't let me down yet 😉

Fine, I'll humor you.

God is everything and everything is God. There is no other logical answer that fits the definition of perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

 

[CKent]

Your definition is "God is everything and everything is God.". The rest of your quote is your reasoning as to why it's your definition, eg. the conclusion you jumped to.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
That's beside the point. You're berating atheists for commonly having a belief which differs from the minority belief defined by the dictionary. Meanwhile your definition of God is different from the norm as well. Who knows, perhaps you think you're God (in which case you should smite the heathen website dictionary.com 😛) since you get to make up your own definitions and insult people who use the different ones which they're accustomed to that are in dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.

god Audio pronunciation of "god" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Note that your definition is missing...

No, it's right there as the very first defintion, which I have bolded for your reading convenience.

I'm not seeing "encompassing everything" anywhere. Your conjecture that a deity must encompass everything is just that - your conjecture. It isn't in the definition.

Originally posted by: tweakmm
If I were you I would have given up responding about mid-way through the second page. :laugh:
The concepts to which you refer require the ability to extend one's perspective outside of the personal and into the universal. Such a shift is not easily accomplished through a few words exchanged on an internet message board. Some obviously get it and some obviously don't.
But really, :thumbsup: for trying. My patience is usually not that good.

Yep, some of us are difficult/impossible to convert 😉

Originally posted by: Satchel
There is no such thing as a "strong" athiest or a "weak" athiest. If you deny the existence of God then you are an athiest. If you have doubts about the existence of God then you are agnostic.

Do you deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? In all seriousness, it's a pretty ridiculous concept. A deity made of pasta and meatballs and such (wonder if there's any parmesan?)... No, you simply don't give it much thought. As with everything else you can't see or hear, you file it away in your brain's "Vague possibilities, proof needed" cabinet and are done with it. Yet the religious beliefs many were brought up with, no different than the FSM, are in the "prove me wrong, biatch!" cabinet. A misplaced file, surely...

You imply that everyone uses the same thought processes as you do. You're using pronouns when you should be using the first-person. Just because you file things away in your brain a certain way does not mean that everyone else does. I assure you that there are people that deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you require proof simply makes you an agnostic.

 

[Fox5]

Right now, I believe one of two things.....
1. We're the result of natural processes and interactions between particles/objects/etc. We could not have been anything else other than what we are now, and don't have control over what we'll be in the future, since everything since the start of the universe has just been a cascade of physical and chemical interactions, thus even what you think is not something you can control.

2. We actually are capable of altering ourselves and our environment beyond what the interactions should make happen next, essentially we either have true randomness or we are not bond to the natural laws, thus making us deities, just without all the fancy wording that god gets in the bible.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Satchel
You imply that everyone uses the same thought processes as you do. You're using pronouns when you should be using the first-person. Just because you file things away in your brain a certain way does not mean that everyone else does. I assure you that there are people that deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you require proof simply makes you an agnostic.

You didn't answer my question, my point stands.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Satchel
You imply that everyone uses the same thought processes as you do. You're using pronouns when you should be using the first-person. Just because you file things away in your brain a certain way does not mean that everyone else does. I assure you that there are people that deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you require proof simply makes you an agnostic.

You didn't answer my question, my point stands.

That wasn't a rhetorical question? You asked me if I deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster! How could my answer possibly have anything to do with any kind of a "point" you are trying to make?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Satchel
You imply that everyone uses the same thought processes as you do. You're using pronouns when you should be using the first-person. Just because you file things away in your brain a certain way does not mean that everyone else does. I assure you that there are people that deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you require proof simply makes you an agnostic.

You didn't answer my question, my point stands.

That wasn't a rhetorical question? You asked me if I deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster! How could my answer possibly have anything to do with any kind of a "point" you are trying to make?

You're dodging the question like Neo in The Matrix, this is really quite impressive. Let's see how many more replies you can go! 😀

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Satchel
You imply that everyone uses the same thought processes as you do. You're using pronouns when you should be using the first-person. Just because you file things away in your brain a certain way does not mean that everyone else does. I assure you that there are people that deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you require proof simply makes you an agnostic.

You didn't answer my question, my point stands.

That wasn't a rhetorical question? You asked me if I deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster! How could my answer possibly have anything to do with any kind of a "point" you are trying to make?

You're dodging the question like Neo in The Matrix, this is really quite impressive. Let's see how many more replies you can go! 😀

Does your point hinge on whether I'm athiest, agnostic, or religious? If so, then just ask. Otherwise you're just being obtuse and you should go back to arguing with the dictionary. It's done wonders for your credibility thus far.

 

[Waylay00]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Option 3: God created Monkeys. God created Evolution. Monkeys evolved into humans.
And it's not necessarily the "Christian" God that did this.

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to people who think the two cannot be used mutually. I mean, what's to say God didn't create the universe and it all evolved from there? (nb. both bold words)

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Waylay00

Originally posted by: Jzero
Option 3: God created Monkeys. God created Evolution. Monkeys evolved into humans.
And it's not necessarily the "Christian" God that did this.

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to people who think the two cannot be used mutually. I mean, what's to say God didn't create the universe and it all evolved from there? (nb. both bold words)

yeah, when the whole debate about "intelligent design" stated, this is the first theory i thought of. it's possible if one believes in a higer power. the two certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Your definition is "God is everything and everything is God.". The rest of your quote is your reasoning as to why it's your definition, eg. the conclusion you jumped to.

The force is weak with this one.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Satchel
You imply that everyone uses the same thought processes as you do. You're using pronouns when you should be using the first-person. Just because you file things away in your brain a certain way does not mean that everyone else does. I assure you that there are people that deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you require proof simply makes you an agnostic.

You didn't answer my question, my point stands.

That wasn't a rhetorical question? You asked me if I deny the existence of a flying spaghetti monster! How could my answer possibly have anything to do with any kind of a "point" you are trying to make?

You're dodging the question like Neo in The Matrix, this is really quite impressive. Let's see how many more replies you can go! 😀

Does your point hinge on whether I'm athiest, agnostic, or religious? If so, then just ask. Otherwise you're just being obtuse and you should go back to arguing with the dictionary. It's done wonders for your credibility thus far.

Lol, you could step in the ring with Mike Tyson and not get touched 😛 My credibility? You're made three replies now, all rude for the sole purpose of disguising the fact you refuse to answer a simple question. The only lacking credibility here is yours, my friend.

Consider this discussion over, unless you'd care to stop dancing around the issue.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
Your definition is "God is everything and everything is God.". The rest of your quote is your reasoning as to why it's your definition, eg. the conclusion you jumped to.

The force is weak with this one.

Were you just born with the ability to selectively ignore reality, or is it something you've worked to accomplish? 😕