Forum fun...

[Krazeh]

One of the most visible is the Bible and the evidence it contains, including prophecies given that came to pass well after the original words were written.

Are you serious? You're claim to verifiable evidence is the fact that people have managed to "link" events with writings made in the bible? It's suprisingly easy to fit words to events after they have happened, just because people are able to do it doesn't make the original words verifiable evidence that God exists.

Getting more generic, every human culture had a belief system in a diety or dieties, or powers beyond the realm of the physical world we can see and touch. If there was no such other-worldly power, it would seem some athiest-baby at some point would have developed a wonderfully advanced civilization without any such belief system -- but it has never happened.

I don't expect you to accept such evidence, but that is your choice.

Most human cultures have never had the level of scientific knowledge and understanding that we know possess. In such circumstances it's not really that suprising that they looked to higher powers to try and understand the things they saw happening all around them. Again it doesn't in anyway point to the actual existence of the higher powers.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Not true. As a practicer of science I would love to be presented with this "proof".

Unfortunately, at some point this "proof" would require me to take a leap of faith. Therefore it would not be "proof" but just another religious belief.


If you had proof of the existence of God, you'd bet your ass I'd believe it -because it would be in my own selfish interests to do so. But you don't.

Only in your whacked-out sky-fairly worshipping mind is it "proof"

No more leap of faith than is required to completely deny any chance of the possibility of a higher power... Like those that practice the religion of Atheism.

 

[Krazeh]

No more leap of faith than is required to completely deny any chance of the possibility of a higher power... Like those that practice the religion of Atheism.

You keep stating this even tho it's been pointed out several times to be utter nonsense. What is it that you're not grasping about atheism not requiring the denial of the possibility of the existence of a higher power?

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Have you stopped beating your wife or not?

Your questions are designed to constrain responses in to an answer that confirms your point. The questions are flawed.



You misred me, I said "I will think it's quite likely" with respect to evolution, because there is plenty of evidence but it remains a theory.



A cute attempt to get a rise out of me, this isn't flamewarriors and I ended my shouty internet argument phase about 10 years ago. Incidentally I've been to Ameeeerkah several times and I love it there, it's a fantastic place. New York is utterly fantastic and exciting. Shit, I even liked Wisconsin and as I understand, all they've got going for them is cheese.

Not flawed. Designed to show you that you are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

 

[SWtarget]

Not true. As a practicer of science I would love to be presented with this "proof".

Unfortunately, at some point this "proof" would require me to take a leap of faith. Therefore it would not be "proof" but just another religious belief.


If you had proof of the existence of God, you'd bet your ass I'd believe it -because it would be in my own selfish interests to do so. But you don't.

Only in your whacked-out sky-fairly worshipping mind is it "proof"

"Evidence" becomes "proof" when one decides that the evidence is strong enough that the conclusion must be true.

A nice way to say there is no "proof" is to continue to reject the evidence, no matter how strong.

 

[Jeros]

So....about those dino fossils we keep digging up?

 

[megadave]

stolen from FHOT

 

[nath]

One of the most visible is the Bible and the evidence it contains, including prophecies given that came to pass well after the original words were written. Getting more generic, every human culture had a belief system in a diety or dieties, or powers beyond the realm of the physical world we can see and touch. If there was no such other-worldly power, it would seem some athiest-baby at some point would have developed a wonderfully advanced civilization without any such belief system -- but it has never happened.

I don't expect you to accept such evidence, but that is your choice.

It's not my choice, it's the fact that I have a rational mind that prevents me from accepting it.

If we apply Occam's Razor to your so-called evidence of the Bible, at *best* it means that the author of the prophecies was capable of predicting the future. I expect there's a far more reasonable explanation for it but to extrapolate the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient being from some text in a book is the worst misunderstanding of the term "evidence". It'd be like me predicting the weather to some tribesmen because my mobile phone told me it was going to rain and them extrapolating that I'm some sort of magical being.

There does appear to be a natural proclivity to hold religious belief among our species, again applying Occam's razor, all that allows us to assume is that, well, we have a natural proclivity to hold religious beliefs. Assuming that means there could be an omnipotent omniscient being is just that, an assumption. Not evidence.

Not flawed. Designed to show you that you are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

Exactly, the flaw in your thinking about atheism vs agnosticism results in the flawed structure of your question. If you fully understood the difference you'd realise why the question was invalid.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Where did I or anyone else say that it was known for sure that babies do not have any religion in them? Any claims made about babies not havign a concept of religion is made on the basis of our current understanding. And I don't believe looking at the evidence we have available and making a rational, logical deduction can be described as a matter of faith, certainly not in the way faith is meant in terms of religion.

I realise the following isn't aimed directly at me but I thought i'd answer anyway.



Given I don't have any belief in the existence of a diety then I think their teachings are mostly nonsensical.



I don't have a belief in the existence of any such ideal.



Again not having any belief in the existence of a diety I can only view the ideal of intelligent design as what it is, second rate science with no evidence to back up any of it's claims.



I don't have a belief in the absence of a higher power, I have the absence of a belief in a higher power. Very different thing.

Your "lack of belief" is tantamount to "refusal to state position". You too, are a fence sitting agnostic.

 

[Krazeh]

If we apply Occam's Razor to your so-called evidence of the Bible, at *best* it means that the author of the prophecies was capable of predicting the future. I expect there's a far more reasonable explanation for it but to extrapolate the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient being from some text in a book is the worst misunderstanding of the term "evidence".

I think Occam's Razor would more likely lead us to the conclusion that the meaning of the words have been twisted in order to fit the pattern of events that later transpired. For example, Nostradamus' prediction of pig half-men doing battle in the sky which people claim to have been a prediction of the fighter battles during the Great War and that his "pig half-men" was a description of how pilots looked in their headgear and breathing masks.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Q.E.D once again.

I don't "believe" in the absence of a higher power. I simply don't "believe" in anything.

Still struggling? It's not your fault. You can't help it.

Bless

You're agnostic.

 

[Scouse]

Please lets get off religion. It's a waste of time. We know that lack of belief isn't something that a "believer" can comprehend without some sort of epiphany.

The fact that they perform the action of "belief" means that they can't agree - because it would negate the very beliefs that they so desparately cling to.


And the thread's getting boring too

 

[SWtarget]

If we apply Occam's Razor to your so-called evidence of the Bible, at *best* it means that the author of the prophecies was capable of predicting the future. I expect there's a far more reasonable explanation for it but to extrapolate the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient being from some text in a book is the worst misunderstanding of the term "evidence".

If you are going to agree that it is possible someone was capable of predicting the future, why would you reject their claim of its source?

I have a watch. It keeps time. You ask me how it works. I say there is a battery inside that makes it work.

Someone gives a prophecy. It comes true. You ask him how he does it, and he attributes it to God.

Why would you assume I am telling the truth in the first instance and am lying in the second?

 

[Krazeh]

Your "lack of belief" is tantamount to "refusal to state position". You too, are a fence sitting agnostic.

No, it's not. I have no evidence on which to even begin to base any sort of belief in the existence of a deity, ergo I hold no such belief. I have no problem stating my position, it's that I have no belief in the existence of deities. To be an agnostic would require me to hold a belief on the existence of, or absence of, one or more deities, which I something I do not hold.

 

[SWtarget]

stolen from FHOT

That's very cute, but I do wonder if you could tell me which portions advocate suicide, beastiality, etc.?

 

[Scouse]

You're agnostic.

No I'm not.

Because you perform the action of "belief" you are unfortunately not capable of understanding the arguments correctly.

I do not say that to offend you.

 

[nath]

If you are going to agree that it is possible someone was capable of predicting the future, why would you reject their claim of its source?

I have a watch. It keeps time. You ask me how it works. I say there is a battery inside that makes it work.

Someone gives a prophecy. It comes true. You ask him how he does it, and he attributes it to God.

Why would you assume I am telling the truth in the first instance and am lying in the second?

I'm willing to accept evidence of anything, if it's indeed evidence. Whether or not I reject their claim of its source is irrelevant. If you tell me it's a battery that powers your watch, that's not evidence that a battery powers your watch. If we take it apart and see how it works, that would be evidence.

If someone gives a prophecy and it comes true, that's not evidence of - well, anything other than someone said something and it came true. If he claims God is responsible that's not evidence of anything other than the person claims God is responsible. It's not even evidence that he believes that God is responsible. I'm genuinely not meaning to be offensive here but I don't know how else to put it, but it seems that you don't really understand the scientific approach or what evidence actually is.

To distil it to its base parts:
1. Someone does something for which people have no explanation.
2. That person claims that God was responsible.

In response to both of them:
1. That doesn't mean that this act *has* no explanation. If we see a magician perform the whole idea is for us to not know how he does what he does.
2. This is completely irrelevant, if the magician claims that God is responsible for his magic tricks, that's not evidence for a God.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

No I'm not.

Because you perform the action of "belief" you are unfortunately not capable of understanding the arguments correctly.

I do not say that to offend you.

And you have been conditioned to not recognize that you have made a conscious decision to not decide about a higher power. This is a knee jerk rationalization to prevent yourself from making a decision. You are a fence sitting agnostic.

One last chance.
1. There is no god = atheist
2. I refuse to make a decision about religion = agnostic
3. I'm a Catholic/Muslim/Protestant/etc = theist

 

[nath]

1. There is no god = atheist
2. I refuse to make a decision about religion = agnostic
3. I'm a Catholic/Muslim/Protestant/etc = theist

Though I don't make a habit of speaking for others I'm fairly confident in saying that myself, Krazeh and Scouse do not fit in to any 3 of those conditions and do, in fact, consider ourselves to be weak-atheists a well established and understood term that fits our state of mind. Look it up, I know it's hard for you Americans to see things in anything other than black & white but as one of my favourite atheists, Ben Goldacre, often says: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that".

 

[Scouse]

One last chance.
1. There is no god = atheist

I can only say it so many times but wrong again. PLEASE try to follow the below:

Atheist's do believe there is no god << not atheism

Atheist's have a LACK OF belief in a god << is atheism


These are two incredibly different things. Do you understand this concept, yes or no?

If yes. Please explain it to me, because I don't believe you. This is your big chance to blow me out of the water

 

[Krazeh]

And you have been conditioned to not recognize that you have made a conscious decision to not decide about a higher power. This is a knee jerk rationalization to prevent yourself from making a decision. You are a fence sitting agnostic.

Assuming we're discussing the major organised religions here, which are all based on teachings produced by man and therefore any knowledge of the deities in these religion require you to have been exposed to teachings, how would you describe someone who had never been exposed and therefore had no concept of what we consider to be a "higher power"? They couldn't possibly have made a decision to not decide about a higher power as they don't have any knowledge or concept of such a thing. But at the same time they couldn't possibly deny it's existence. They would simply lack any belief in the existence of a higher power.

One last chance.
1. There is no god = atheist
2. I refuse to make a decision about religion = agnostic
3. I'm a Catholic/Muslim/Protestant/etc = theist

Don't think anyone's disputing those categories with you (well apart from maybe Scouse), but I and others on this board haven't refused to make a decision about religion. We've looked at the evidence available and made a rational, logical decision that there's nothing on which to base a belief that a higher power exists. As such we do not hold such a belief and are therefore atheists.

Edit: I only state i'm not disputing point 1 as I do believe that atheists can hold the belief that there is no god; altho it's not this belief that makes them an atheist, it's the lack of belief they have in the existence of a god that makes them that. Anything extra is just a dressing on top of their atheism.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Though I don't make a habit of speaking for others I'm fairly confident in saying that myself, Krazeh and Scouse do not fit in to any 3 of those conditions and do, in fact, consider ourselves to be weak-atheists a well established and understood term that fits our state of mind. Look it up, I know it's hard for you Americans to see things in anything other than black & white but as one of my favourite atheists, Ben Goldacre, often says: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that".

Weak atheist?? You're a fucking agnostic.

 

[Scouse]

Come on Son Of.... I've asked you a direct question to allow you to prove to us all that you actually understand what we're talking about. Don't piss about. Meet the challenge.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

I can only say it so many times but wrong again. PLEASE try to follow the below:

Atheist's do believe there is no god << not atheism

Atheist's have a LACK OF belief in a god << is atheism


These are two incredibly different things. Do you understand this concept, yes or no?

If yes. Please explain it to me, because I don't believe you. This is your big chance to blow me out of the water

Is there no god? No? You're an atheist.
Is there no god? don't know/don't care... You're an agnostic.

 

[Scouse]

Is there no god? No? You're an atheist.
Is there no god? don't know/don't care... You're an agnostic.

FAIL


Seriously. It's an incredibly important semantic argument. Please go back and tell me what the difference is between the two sentences I gave you.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Come on Son Of.... I've asked you a direct question to allow you to prove to us all that you actually understand what we're talking about. Don't piss about. Meet the challenge.

What is absolutely hilarious is the fact that you subscribe to a belief that you don't even understand the definition of.

 

[Krazeh]

Is there no god? No? You're an atheist.
Is there no god? don't know/don't care... You're an agnostic.

So no then, you don't understand what Scouse is getting at? Can I ask if you were raised in a religious environment? As it appears you're really struggling to grasp or understand the concept of not holding any sort of belief in deities, which in my experience (altho not always) is down to having been brought up in an environment which requires you to hold a belief in a deity.

What is absolutely hilarious is the fact that you subscribe to a belief that you don't even understand the definition of.

Please explain how not having a belief in the existence of a higher power is in fact a belief? Or indeed that the lack of belief in a higher power is not the definition of atheism.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

FAIL


Seriously. It's an incredibly important semantic argument. Please go back and tell me what the difference is between the two sentences I gave you.

The difference between your rationalization of your "lack" of belief? Hell, I share your same lack of belief... I just correctly term my lack of belief correctly as agnosticism rather than the edgy yet incorrect religious term of atheism that you use.

 

[SWtarget]

Boils down to hearsay is not evidence.

P1: "What were you doing at 8pm."
P2: "Watching the telly."
P1: "There is no evidence you were watching the telly."
P3: "I saw him watching the telly."
P1: "There is no evidence you were watching the telly."
P4-2000: "His house is made of glass, the whole town saw him watching the telly."
P1: "There is no evidence you were watching the telly."

This is why I started by saying that athiests simply reject the evidence available. Hundreds to thousands of people throughout history performing signs, and being viewed performing signs, and attributing it to God, yet it is "easier" to claim they were all mistaken or liars, and therefore it isn't evidence.

More and more, anthropologists in the middle east uncover evidence of the people and events described in the Bible . . . yet when it comes to the descriptions of who inspired the writing of it, it is summarily rejected because it is all hearsay.

Because it is late and I am off to bed, I'll concede that there is likely no evidence I could put forth that would satisfy your standard. If you'd rather believe that everything sprang from nothing purely by accident, I won't be able to persuade you.

 

[nath]

SoS, you appear to be backed in to a corner and are now just effectively covering your ears and screaming your original point. You're the donkey from Family Guy. You're reiterating your same point over and over again without responding to our repeated, clear and concise demonstrations that it's utterly incorrect.

YouTube - Family Guy - Like Arguing with a Mule