One can lazily seek God, but those are they who are usually weak in faith. For others it is no easy, indolent task. It just involves a different sort of test than science.
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?
Look closely. I put the verb "believe" in italics.
As Frink said, belief and knowledge are two different things. I don't believe there is no God, but then again I don't believe the Earth goes around the Sun. I know the Earth goes around the sun.
But if you know the Earth goes around the sun, you must also believe it goes around the sun.
So you are saying that you know God doesn't exist. That seems like a rather arrogant thing to say.
Leonardo said:
In my personal view of the world I exclude any metaphysics, therefore there is no God.
I wouldn't call that 'knowing knowing God doesn't exist', I'd call that 'assuming God doesn't exist'.
Warbler said:
So you are saying that you know God doesn't exist. That seems like a rather arrogant thing to say.
lol, is this the first atheist you've ever had a discussion with?
...
Incidentally, how is it any less arrogant to say you know God does exist?
darth_ender said:
For this reason, I can see where the agnostic comes from, but not the atheist. The agnostic does not believe God exists, yet reserves ultimate judgment.
That's not how I define my belief system. I believe that I do not know if God does or does not exist. While I tend to lean slightly towards does not exist, I have no strong feeling either way. I also tend to believe that if there is a God, no one really knows for certain, but I accept that I could be wrong.
Of course, there are so many versions of God, I don't know how you all go through life convinced your version is the real one. ;-)
...
Oh, and I'm pleased you like me more than Leo. :p
darth_ender said:
Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist.
I think that many who are atheist are atheist with regards to a specific god of a specific religion. For example, Douglass Adams began his journey to atheism when he heard a street preacher and realized that the preacher was not making logical sense. This specific atheism is then often generalized to ALL religion, or else the distinction is rarely made clear.
I think that when many people claim to be atheist, they are simply saying that they have examined the evidence for a god of the religion of their parents/country and found this deity to have contradictory attributes. For example, how can the Christian God claim to be completely loving and also jealous, knowing that the Bible states that love is not jealous? In breaking strongly from such a deity, they claim atheism, as it is simply more applicable in most situations to their true feelings on the subject.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
Warbler said:
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?
Look closely. I put the verb "believe" in italics.
As Frink said, belief and knowledge are two different things. I don't believe there is no God, but then again I don't believe the Earth goes around the Sun. I know the Earth goes around the sun.
But if you know the Earth goes around the sun, you must also believe it goes around the sun.
No, I don't. I know it. Period. One excludes the other.
So you are saying that you know God doesn't exist. That seems like a rather arrogant thing to say.
So what?
Ok, picture this: in your system of beliefs, I am wrong. Now, just assume, for the sake of argument, that I was right. Would I be arrogant then? Or would I be just right? Please define arrogant for me, maybe I don't fully understand what the word means.
Leonardo said:
In my personal view of the world I exclude any metaphysics, therefore there is no God.
I wouldn't call that 'knowing God doesn't exist', I'd call that 'assuming God doesn't exist'.
Again, I don't assume anything. As I said earlier "a theist's view of the universe puts metaphysics first, as a given, and then everything else should follow". That's what you do.
You are certain that a metaphysic reality exists. That's your postulate.
I, on the other hand, exclude that anything that doesn't belong in the physical world can possibly exist. Everything is physical. Nothing is metaphysical. That's my postulate.
TV's Frink said:
Oh, and I'm pleased you like me more than Leo. :p
Dem's fighting words! ;p
darth_ender said:
There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia.
I think you are generalizing quite a lot here, and being very presumptuous. Not all atheists are materialistic atheists or ascribe strictly to scientific thought, or require demonstration or falsifiability to disbelieve in God or gods.
And even for those of us who do, you're trying to spin the scientific process in a way that makes it sound extraordinarily limiting, in a way that it isn't to most of us. Ultimately, a scientist knows that we don't know even a small fraction of everything there is to know, and that the knowledge we do have is just a starting point to greater discovery and free thought. Where you make it sound like a brick wall that stops us in our tracks, it is really a wide open gateway and a series of bridges and roads to all sorts of exciting places that are still in the process of being built and paved.
For this reason, I can see where the agnostic comes from, but not the atheist. The agnostic does not believe God exists, yet reserves ultimate judgment. The atheist on the other hand feels that they can somehow disprove God's existence, though such is scientifically impossible. In other words, they are contradicting the only source of truth they even accept: scientific experimentation.
From a strictly scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to feel the need to disprove the existence of God. It is not that complicated.
I'm going to use Odin, because he is by far the most badass god who ever existed. (See what I did there?)
Now I am pretty sure none of you theists believe Odin exists. In fact, I am willing to bet you guys know Odin doesn't exist. The very idea of believing in this ancient Nord god in this day and age is silly. But at one time for a group of people who lived long ago, it would have been offensive to walk up to them and say Odin doesn't exist. It's very likely you would end up with a battle axe embedded in your skull, in the name of Odin, of course. Perhaps some of them would have just tisk tisked your lack of faith, or challenged you to disprove Odin, ranted about how their belief liberates them, or simply handed you a banana. Who knows.
The definition of "atheist" is: "A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods."
Darth_Ender, Warb, Mrebo, and any other theist here, I could be way off on this and just wildly assuming, but I am willing to bet you are all atheist. If you only believe in one god, it means there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in, or that you hold an atheist stance toward. In the end, I simply disbelieve in one less god than the countless number of gods you don't believe in. The same way you find no reason you should believe in Ra, I find no reason I should believe in your god.
Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist.
Religion has done and does do a lot of shitty things. While I tend to be much more open minded about religion and its positive sides, I certainly cannot fault people for speaking out against it.
Religious persons on the other hand are liberated in this sense. Their sources of knowledge are not limited to the scientific method (though they may be limiting themselves in other ways). They believe that God can prove his existence to them, and that they can 'know' he is real. The scientist may dispute this method, but the very fact that it is accepted on faith and not on scientific proof allows for a claim to knowledge, even if the non-believer disputes the reality of that knowledge.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin in disagreeing with this, it is overwhelming.
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?
Look closely. I put the verb "believe" in italics.
As Frink said, belief and knowledge are two different things. I don't believe there is no God, but then again I don't believe the Earth goes around the Sun. I know the Earth goes around the sun.
But if you know the Earth goes around the sun, you must also believe it goes around the sun.
No, I don't. I know it. Period. One excludes the other.
It is all rather empty semantics being argued here. I feel Leonardo saying he doesn't believe in anything is perfectly valid.
It is all about the number you're looking at and the particular dictionary you are using (and English being Leo's second language, this takes us to a level of semantics most Americans are incapable of thinking on, and we can throw in the language of the dictionary you are reading as well). But it is always kind of fun to hang people with semantics when you can't think of anywhere else to go.
So you are saying that you know God doesn't exist. That seems like a rather arrogant thing to say.
So what?
Ok, picture this: in your system of beliefs, I am wrong. Now, just assume, for the sake of argument, that I was right. Would I be arrogant then? Or would I be just right? Please define arrogant for me, maybe I don't fully understand what the word means.
Arrogant would mean you are over exaggerating your own abilities or self importance.
I daresay Warb is pretty arrogant for knowing that Bes doesn't exist. But then again, maybe he is merely agnostic when it comes to Bes and the other Egyptian gods.
Most of us here can get our heads around the concepts in stories about all powerful and magical beings influencing events here on Earth.
Superman, Doctor Who, Zeus, Kosh, Buddha, Neo, YHWH, Cthulhu... some of us however have a problem believing these things to be literally real.
Not me.
I believe everything is possible and therefore certainly happening somewhere.
CP3S said:
So you are saying that you know God doesn't exist. That seems like a rather arrogant thing to say.
So what?
Ok, picture this: in your system of beliefs, I am wrong. Now, just assume, for the sake of argument, that I was right. Would I be arrogant then? Or would I be just right? Please define arrogant for me, maybe I don't fully understand what the word means.
Arrogant would mean you are over exaggerating your own abilities or self importance.
Then I'm not sure arrogant would be the right word, for one reason: where the individual is concerned, the thruth is his own, and nothing else. It is self-importance, cause we're talking about the self here. Let's say you, CP3S, perceive the world to be made of jam (or jelly). Even if everybody else says it's not, for all you're concerned the world is made of jam, because that is how you perceive it. It's all inside our minds. That's where it matters.
So there is no arrogance.
I know my command of english is not perfect, so I hope I'm making sense here.
I want to live in a world that delicious.
You can!
Is the moon too savory for you?
Fact: if you know something, you must also believe it.
Fact(for myself): I can believe something without having proof that it is true, that is what faith is about). But I don't think I could claim to know something without proof.
I apologize for using the word arrogant.
With that, I give up.
btw black smoke again this morning, no Pope.
I understand. After all, I am from the land of chocolate.
Bingowings said:
Is the moon too savory for you?
TV's Frink said:
I understand. After all, I am from the land of chocolate.
Ahhhhh, the land of chocolate.
Warbler said:
Fact: if you know something, you must also believe it.
Fact(for myself): I can believe something without having proof that it is true, that is what faith is about). But I don't think I could claim to know something without proof.
I apologize for using the word arrogant.
With that, I give up.
btw black smoke again this morning, no Pope.
Fact anyone who starts a sentence with the word fact comes across sounding like an idiot.
As much as I appreciate the magic of believing in something regardless of proof why the Bible?
Or indeed the Book Of Mormon?
Why not Peter Pan or Lord Of The Rings? Is it a family tradition to believe the contents of one book with magical beings in over another?
And why worship the God from the Bible?
He's really not nice.
It's a bit like worshipping Captain Hook over Tinker Bell.
Bingowings said:
Superman, Doctor Who, Zeus, Kosh, Buddha, Neo, YHWH, Cthulhu... some of us however have a problem believing these things to be literally real.
Not me.
I believe everything is possible and therefore certainly happening somewhere.
Because of your great faith, be listening for my blue box, for someday soon I shall come and retrieve you and you shall travel with me until you grow old and unattractive, get permanently trapped in some other dimension, or find yourself frustrated that your deep love and infatuation for me is unrequited.
Tinkerbell is a jealous whore.
Bingowings said:
And why worship the God from the Bible?
He's really not nice.
It's a bit like worshipping Captain Hook over Tinker Bell.
I worship God from the Bible because He has been confirmed to me. But that's for me. I've learned more and more that others need to have their own encounters outside of mine.
You say He's not really nice. And I honestly I can see where you would view it that way; but as I've gotten to know Him, I see it differently.
Saying God isn't "nice" is almost to me like saying He's not "fair". And He's not fair. But you see we're using one word to substitute another. For many "fair" means "right". It's not that way to me. Fairness is a human institution. Righteousness is God's. He's not fair, but He is right, and if He's right, then His ways have to be good.
A lot of the things that happen in the Old Testament of scriptures is more about humanity not being able to live up to the standard of true righteousness. He had to punish sin because His pure righteousness wouldn't allow Him to not do so. If my daughter was kidnapped, raped, and killed; then it was proven in court that an individual 100% did these things; and then the judge just let him go free. I wouldn't call him a good judge. This is where I see God.. He must do what He must do, because otherwise He's not a proper/righteous God.
There is a standard to live by, and if we don't, there is a price. That's where Jesus of the New Testament comes in. God's contingency plan for humanity was redemption through the one human that was sinless. A true unblemished sacrifice. That was the only way God could give us a way out. But He's not nice, right? He had his son killed so we could find this spiritual loophole, but he's not nice?
And again, He's not fair. Fairness would be just to smite us all and call it day. But He didn't. He gave us Jesus. Thankfully He's not fair. But He is right.
If any of this sounded sarcastic, I assure it wasn't intended as such. I actually do care about you and others on this board. If I didn't, I wouldn't even try.
Everything that I'm writing here is abridged information to be sure. If anyone on here wants to talk more on this one on one; that's what the PM system is for. Would be glad to talk with anyone about what I believe.
Who confirmed God to you, if I might ask?
There isn't much difference between the way the God chap in the Bible acts and the way Palpatine acts in Star Wars.
If you were of a mind to believe that Star Wars isn't a work of fiction but a forgotten history of a far away and long ago galaxy it would be unconventional to be rooting for the wrinkly faced tyrant throwing bolts of lightning around.
Though personally I think he has style and convention be damned.
CP3S said:
Bingowings said:
Superman, Doctor Who, Zeus, Kosh, Buddha, Neo, YHWH, Cthulhu... some of us however have a problem believing these things to be literally real.
Not me.
I believe everything is possible and therefore certainly happening somewhere.
Because of your great faith, be listening for my blue box.
Don't land in Glasgow or your blue box might end up red.
I'd love to enter your box but could you do something about those funny noises?
