Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization?

[xellos88330]

I love my history, but I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization that is still successful by modern standards. Atheists are "smart" so one would think that they would be far more advanced than we whose progress was "hindered" by religion.

Maybe the city of Atlantis was atheist because they were said to be way ahead technologically. Then again, it is also said that they were descendants of Poseidon.

[Blake]

Which religion has lasted longer than atheism

[Avante]

Never have understood this need to ignore your family, the history of it all, the country you live in to play this..."things are better if ya have nothing". What does one gain by going that route?

While I don't buy into the Christian Bible, there is no doubt something is behind all this and I know he/it/she/they are out there. To think this all just happened is ridiculous.

[ChumpDumper]

Kinda cheapens religion if any ol' god or group of gods will do.

And we've barely gotten past civilizations that were dependent on slavery, so I'd probably say just give it time.

[cantthinkofanything]

Kinda cheapens religion if any ol' god or group of gods will do.

And we've barely gotten past civilizations that were dependent on slavery, so I'd probably say just give it time.

You miss the point as always. It's a journey. Finding something beyond human. You're farther behind the Druids.

[ChumpDumper]

You miss the point as always. It's a journey. Finding something beyond human. You're farther behind the Druids.Did they actually find anything?

Have you?

[cantthinkofanything]

Did they actually find anything?

Have you?

I don't know.
Maybe.

[TDMVPDPOY]

before jesus was born, ppl live fine man

in the bible said he was a carpenter? wtf did he build?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know.
Maybe.Well there you go.

[Avante]

Here's a list of all the good things about being an atheist.

[Blake]

Here's a list of all the good things about being an atheist.

1. Sleep in on Sundays

[xellos88330]

Which religion has lasted longer than atheism

Let me guess what you are implying. Babies are born atheist.

Well in that case, what exactly are babies capable of? They are born not knowing anything except instinct, and are completely dependent on an older, more mature and enlightened adult to take care of them. If there is no care given, the baby dies. Therefore it is possible to conclude that without religion being learned or taught, the atheist will die due to lack of support.

Typical primitive atheistic logic.

[Trainwreck2100]

didn't the soviets try it?

[Blake]

Wut. Plenty of godless animals out there in nature doing fine tbh.

[Blake]

So op posts this:


Ugh... atheism again.

It is bad enough having evangelists, and now come the atheists. Sheesh... do you atheists know how to shut up?

But then starts this thread.

sheesh ugh durn it

[xellos88330]

Wut. Plenty of godless animals out there in nature doing fine tbh.

Yet here you are in civilization.

[xellos88330]

So op posts this:



But then starts this thread.

sheesh ugh durn it

And you still haven't shut up. LOL!!!

[xellos88330]

So, can you answer my question Blake? Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization?

[Blake]

And you still haven't shut up. LOL!!!

I'm not whining that there's too much atheism being discussed here. That's you. And you still haven't shut up. :cry lol :cry

[xellos88330]

didn't the soviets try it?

Yep, and look how that turned out. Because logic.

[xellos88330]

I'm not whining that there's too much atheism being discussed here. That's you. And you still haven't shut up. :cry lol :cry

I am talking about something that you love to talk about by the amount of threads you post about atheism. You still cannot provide any evidence of the historical significance of atheism and proof that atheism is only way to lead humanity to advancement. Use your atheist intellect and figure it out, or is google not cooperating.

[xellos88330]

Babies are atheist.... nice argument.




Pathetic...

[Blake]

Yet here you are in civilization.

yeah but it's been tough foraging for food and water without religion.

[Koolaid_Man]

Did they actually find anything?

Have you?

I've surely found something..you can bet your bottom dollar :lol how any moron can think this is a product of a boiling hot soup inferno that somehow over trillions of years just fell into place in sweet fleshly form that will allow me to have amazing sex with is just a level of ignorance I simply dont care to know...:toast


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/camel-toe-28_zpsofhm0n0g.jpg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/camel-toe-26_zpslkywn9ca.jpg



http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/camel-toe-22_zpsn2d5pebn.jpg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/vida-guerra-ass-pictures_zpsbbm94ixy.jpeg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/nice-ass-69_zps78n8dztl.jpg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/nice-ass-56_zpsd1whwnj6.jpg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/nice-ass-77_zpsvdnxwkkf.jpeg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/perfect-ass-95_zpsmkjc0cbc.jpg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/camel-toe-1_zpsw8sf2hij.jpg


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/ass-pic-2_zpsgs7jeiba.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/amazing-selfshot-babes-tits-1_zpsvmrnhn7o.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/camel-toe-29_zpsulszisqj.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/amazing-selfshot-babes-tits-5_zpszfhebgp8.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/download_zpsnozxbtxo.jpg

[Blake]

Babies are atheist.... nice argument.




Pathetic...

I'm not arguing that point. I'm stating it as fact.

[Blake]

I am talking about something that you love to talk about by the amount of threads you post about atheism. You still cannot provide any evidence of the historical significance of atheism and proof that atheism is only way to lead humanity to advancement. Use your atheist intellect and figure it out, or is google not cooperating.

how many threads have I posted about atheism? Do you have a number or do you just feel persecuted?

[ChumpDumper]

Kool proves yet again he has never touched a woman.

[xellos88330]

yeah but it's been tough foraging for food and water without religion.

So you turn to the civilization that religion helped build for sustenance. Just like a baby would because you are incapable of surviving on atheism alone. Hmmm...

[Koolaid_Man]

Kool proves yet again he has never touched a woman.

Ha! Stick to the logic..dont go off on tangents....seeing those beautiful women makes you question your belief system right? Granted you're not a homosexual

[unleashbaynes]

the better question is why does every civilization built around religion eventually crumble?

[Koolaid_Man]

the better question is why does every civilization built around religion eventually crumble?

Religion has nothing to do with god....two different concepts

[xellos88330]

how many threads have I posted about atheism? Do you have a number or do you just feel persecuted?

Lol!!! Persecuted? Perhaps I am doing what any good believer does and am trying to save you from turning your own beliefs into an actual religion.

[Koolaid_Man]

Again proof is in the pussy....why travel the universe when its staring you right in the face ?

[xellos88330]

the better question is why does every civilization built around religion eventually crumble?

Soviets crumbled after they adopted atheistic views. They fell HARD!

[Blake]

Lol!!! Persecuted? Perhaps I am doing what any good believer does and am trying to save you from turning your own beliefs into an actual religion.

That's generous of you to spend time on me, good believer.

Please lay out what religion you are and why it's the best religion for our society and for mankind in general. Thanks.

[xellos88330]

That's generous of you to spend time on me, good believer.

Please lay out what religion you are and why it's the best religion for our society and for mankind in general. Thanks.

Perhaps you should state why atheism is the best for our society and mankind in general. There is no proof that atheism is necessary in this world and is the only path to progress. Religion/Spirituality does seem to have a serious effect on advancement of society and technology. Where would mankind be if it weren't for that ultimate question? Isn't that what you atheists require? Proof? You fail to provide it.

[Blake]

Perhaps you should state why atheism is the best for our society and mankind in general. There is no proof that atheism is necessary in this world and is the only path to progress.

Well since nobody can agree, or better yet, prove which religion is the truth, I think the prudent thing to do is to go with no religion. It makes no sense to randomly pick a religion for the sake of having a religion to lean on.


Religion/Spirituality does seem to have a serious effect on advancement of society and technology. Where would mankind be if it weren't for that ultimate question? Isn't that what you atheists require? Proof? You fail to provide it.

What ultimate question?

And you'll need to explain and show evidence of religion's positive effect on advancement of society and technology if you want a serious discussion here.

[DarrinS]

Weren't the Soviets and Chi-coms atheists? Great role models, btw. :lmao

[Avante]

Every culture had their Gods, why?

[Blake]

Every culture had their Gods, why?

False.

[DisAsTerBot]

lol never heard of separation of church and state. or religous freedom.

lol thinking the united states was founded on religion

lol not counting the us as a long standing successful civilization

lol jeebs

[Blake]

Weren't the Soviets and Chi-coms atheists? Great role models, btw. :lmao

Because us low IQ Americans are awesome world policing role models

[RD2191]

:lmaoxellos regulating blake and his fellow scrub atheists

[Blake]

:lmaoxellos regulating blake and his fellow scrub atheists

Lol cheerleader

[ChumpDumper]

Ha! Stick to the logic..dont go off on tangents....seeing those beautiful women makes you question your belief system right? Granted you're not a homosexualSeeing all these women you will never touch has no effect on my belief system.

[RD2191]

Lol cheerleader
cuck

[DMC]

I love my history, but I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization that is still successful by modern standards. Atheists are "smart" so one would think that they would be far more advanced than we whose progress was "hindered" by religion.

Maybe the city of Atlantis was atheist because they were said to be way ahead technologically. Then again, it is also said that they were descendants of Poseidon.

Argument by popularity.. that's always been the key to finding truth.

[DMC]

Never have understood this need to ignore your family, the history of it all, the country you live in to play this..."things are better if ya have nothing". What does one gain by going that route?

While I don't buy into the Christian Bible, there is no doubt something is behind all this and I know he/it/she/they are out there. To think this all just happened is ridiculous.

Some people need to imagine the puzzle to be solved by placing arbitrary pieces in places they really don't fit. That's often cognitive dissonance.

[DMC]

Perhaps you should state why atheism is the best for our society and mankind in general. There is no proof that atheism is necessary in this world and is the only path to progress. Religion/Spirituality does seem to have a serious effect on advancement of society and technology. Where would mankind be if it weren't for that ultimate question? Isn't that what you atheists require? Proof? You fail to provide it.

It's not best. Truth is often not best, depending on your goal. For example, telling a 3 year old that mom is a crack whore and he was taken from her because she tried to kill him is not the best for that child. It could be the truth, but truth isn't always the best thing for certain immature minds.

It's fine to ask questions (I don't consider creation to be the ultimate question btw) as long as you can handle the answers or lack thereof and not create your own reality. Religion has created its own reality, thousands of different ones in fact. If it makes you feel more comfortable to follow one of those then by all means you should. If you question things and can't bring yourself to worship a concept that doesn't make sense to you, then you'll be better served to address that. That's what atheism is, it's a lack of a god belief and admitting to it. Some of us haven't been convinced and don't feel compelled to go along for the ride just for social acceptance.

[pgardn]

before jesus was born, ppl live fine man

in the bible said he was a carpenter? wtf did he build?

Finished out fishing boats.

[DMC]

lol never heard of separation of church and state. or religous freedom.

lol thinking the united states was founded on religion

lol not counting the us as a long standing successful civilization

lol jeebs

Separation of church and state was a suggestion, it's not a Constitutional item. It was suggested by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists as a way to keep the church free from state affairs, not the opposite. You can never truly separate a leadership from it's core beliefs. It's amusing to see a candidate profess his religion then state it won't affect how he governs, of course it will else you don't believe it.

There's no recorded long standing civilization of atheists because atheism isn't a religion. Nations don't go to war over lack of god beliefs. The whole religion angle with war is a ruse to rile the poor to do the fighting for the rich. It's almost always about power, wealth and resources.

Why the red herring in the OP about atheism and civilizations? Is the OP saying atheism isn't legit, that humans are born failures because they don't have god beliefs at birth? Is he saying any god belief is better than none? Will the real god please stand up?

[pgardn]

Lol cheerleader

And a really bad judge.
Awful actually.

[DarrinS]

Atheists and religious zealots

Both self-righteous d-bags

[DarrinS]

Atheists and religious zealots

Both self-righteous d-bags


I guess I should qualify that with militant-atheists.

[Blake]

cuck

White flag noted, Christian

[pgardn]

It's seems to me religion can be a unifying principal in small doses and an emphasis on building or accomplishing together.
I can see how this would possibly help build civilizations.People who have been dealt bad hands can be comforted and become very productive. There must be a certain amount of cooperation to yield a healthy civilization with parsing of duties and such for the good of the whole. A strong common belief system in something certainly would help it seems.

[RD2191]

White flag noted, Christian
lol cuck. no white flag here.

[Koolaid_Man]

I have no idea why you sissy boys keep going round and round on this..i done already told yall..vagina, tits, and ass can only be created....you guys are just fucking stupid to even be discussing this ole stupid ass shit

[Avante]

Some people need to imagine the puzzle to be solved by placing arbitrary pieces in places they really don't fit. That's often cognitive dissonance.

Then there are those who need something more than just this in their life. They feel better about things if they think it will get better. They really don't care about if anything can be proven or the science behind it all, kinda like a druggie who knows it's bad for him but simply doesn't care.

I know some atheists, they are like you and the atheists we see here. All fucked up.

[Blake]

lol cuck. no white flag here.

Sure there is. You're reduced to name calling and meme posting, Christian.

or maybe you're too dumb to keep up?

[RD2191]

Sure there is. You're reduced to name calling and meme posting, Christian.

or maybe you're too dumb to keep up?
have you even answered the question at hand, faggot? no, you haven't.

[Blake]

Then there are those who need something more than just this in their life. They feel better about things if they think it will get better. They really don't care about if anything can be proven or the science behind it all, kinda like a druggie who knows it's bad for him but simply doesn't care.

I know some atheists, they are like you and the atheists we see here. All fucked up.

You're the most miserable fat fuck here. Why is that, fathole?

[DMC]

Then there are those who need something more than just this in their life. They feel better about things if they think it will get better. They really don't care about if anything can be proven or the science behind it all, kinda like a druggie who knows it's bad for him but simply doesn't care.

I know some atheists, they are like you and the atheists we see here. All fucked up.

Your message is all over the place, probably about like your waistline.

[Blake]

have you even answered the question at hand, faggot? no, you haven't.

Oh a faggot blast. Keep it up, Christian.

Dmc already got to it. It's a red herring question. But you don't understand what a red herring is and why op is a red herring so we're stopped here.

My mistake though in mistaking your self made victory flag for a white flag.

[spurraider21]

Never have understood this need to ignore your family, the history of it all, the country you live in to play this..."things are better if ya have nothing". What does one gain by going that route?

While I don't buy into the Christian Bible, there is no doubt something is behind all this and I know he/it/she/they are out there. To think this all just happened is ridiculous.
if you don't buy into a religion, why are you here defending religion?

[spurraider21]

1. Sleep in on Sundays
Don't miss out on the early football games

[spurraider21]

Weren't the Soviets and Chi-coms atheists? Great role models, btw. :lmao
probably has more to do with their terrible economic systems and dictatorships tbh

thats like saying "lol at failed african civilizations... must mean being black is the reason for their demise"

[RD2191]

Oh a faggot blast. Keep it up, Christian.

Dmc already got to it. It's a red herring question. But you don't understand what a red herring is and why op is a red herring so we're stopped here.

My mistake though in mistaking your self made victory flag for a white flag.
no bitch, you answer the question since you're "smart":lmao

[Blake]

Don't miss out on the early football games

that might be higher on the list than sleeping in

[Blake]

no bitch, you answer the question since you're "smart":lmao

"because atheism sucks".

There, now you're free to back to googling hilarious atheist memes.

[RD2191]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/5/5e/Reddit_Hipster.png

[RD2191]

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i52/5/4/25/frabz-despises-religion-never-talks-about-anything-else-83b70d.jpg

[spurraider21]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/5/5e/Reddit_Hipster.png
:lmao

http://i.gyazo.com/d7cbb8304423d169db5af56cc6abbdfa.png

[RD2191]

:lmao

http://i.gyazo.com/d7cbb8304423d169db5af56cc6abbdfa.png
no one is denying that his neck beard game is on point. and i obviously know that isn't an actual quote but it is funny

[boutons_deux]

"I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization"

why are you looking? what do you hope find or prove?

have you looked for "civilizations" that were nominally theistic but some or most or all of the members were agnostic or atheist?

you Bible humpers are really simple-minded, deluded fucks.

[RD2191]

"I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization"

why are you looking? what do you hope find or prove?

have you looked for "civilizations" that were nominally theistic but some or most or all of the members were agnostic or atheist?

you Bible humpers are really simple-minded, deluded fucks.



find us one faggot

[Blake]

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i52/5/4/25/frabz-despises-religion-never-talks-about-anything-else-83b70d.jpg

Good boy. Jesus is proud of you.

[cantthinkofanything]

Then there are those who need something more than just this in their life. They feel better about things if they think it will get better. They really don't care about if anything can be proven or the science behind it all, kinda like a druggie who knows it's bad for him but simply doesn't care.

I know some atheists, they are like you and the atheists we see here. All fucked up.


You're the most miserable fat fuck here. Why is that, fathole?


Your message is all over the place, probably about like your waistline.

LOL. Standing eight count for Avante.

[Spurminator]

Running a country on religion is smart business. People fall in line better when they fear the wrath of an omniscient being. If people didn't believe in an afterlife, they might care more about getting as much enjoyment as possible out of their time on earth, so they wouldn't work as hard or be as obedient.

[RD2191]

Good boy. Jesus is proud of you.
Don't use that cuck talk on me. We know tyron taught you well but keep it in your personal life.

[Blake]

Don't use that cuck talk on me. We know tyron taught you well but keep it in your personal life.

You worship a dude whose mom cucked his carpenter dad. And you do a horrible job of it.

Now get the fuck back to googling memes, boy. That's all you're good for.

[Avante]

Your message is all over the place, probably about like your waistline.

No it's not, it told the story perfectly. Look at you and all the other atheists here, you're all fucked up.

[Avante]

LOL. Standing eight count for Avante.

Not even close. Who are two of the really bitches here, yep, those two atheists.

[Blake]

No it's not, it told the story perfectly. Look at you and all the other atheists here, you're all fucked up.

Look at you. You're fat.

[DMC]

No it's not, it told the story perfectly. Look at you and all the other atheists here, you're all fucked up.
For some reason your moral edict didn't prevent you from raping a child.

[xellos88330]

"I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization"

why are you looking? what do you hope find or prove?

have you looked for "civilizations" that were nominally theistic but some or most or all of the members were agnostic or atheist?

you Bible humpers are really simple-minded, deluded fucks.




Someone who can't even figure out why I am even researching this is truly simple minded. Let me explain for you.

Atheists love to bring up historical religious text to use against the devout. Myself being a history buff, decided to look into atheist history and came to a realization during my research. Hence my op.

Also, why assume that there is only one side to my research? I thought atheists don't jump to conclusions and just wait for evidence. Oh, wait.... this is indicative behavior from a person who follows a system of right today, wrong tomorrow.

[xellos88330]

Atheism is an inefficient way of life. That is shown by history. You cannot argue with history as the histories are indeed fact. The closest atheism has come to society is communism, yet the soviets are no more, china refuses to crack down on religion after watching Russia fall, north Koreans are starving... completely inefficient. Is religion REALLY wrong? History says no. It is capable of some terrible things, but it is also capable of making civilization possible.

[DMC]

Atheism is an inefficient way of life. That is shown by history. You cannot argue with history as the histories are indeed fact. The closest atheism has come to society is communism, yet the soviets are no more, china refuses to crack down on religion after watching Russia fall, north Koreans are starving... completely inefficient. Is religion REALLY wrong? History says no. It is capable of some terrible things, but it is also capable of making civilization possible.
Atheism isn't a way of life. It's a lack of a god belief. It's not a choice.

Other than your personal god, you're atheist as well.

You can no more regulate theism/atheism than you can thought in general. After all, belief is a thought process, not an act.

Perhaps you're referring to secularism instead. If so you need to clean up your approach and clarify what it is you're railing against.

[Ignignokt]

You worship a dude whose mom cucked his carpenter dad. And you do a horrible job of it.

Now get the fuck back to googling memes, boy. That's all you're good for.

If that's the case you should be the Pope. Pope Cuckxamillian III

[spurraider21]

Atheism is an inefficient way of life. That is shown by history. You cannot argue with history as the histories are indeed fact. The closest atheism has come to society is communism, yet the soviets are no more, china refuses to crack down on religion after watching Russia fall, north Koreans are starving... completely inefficient. Is religion REALLY wrong? History says no. It is capable of some terrible things, but it is also capable of making civilization possible.
reducing the soviets and koreans to atheism makes no sense. as i said in an earlier comment, those are failing states because of terrible economic systems and dictatorships, not because of the belief or lack of belief of a man in the sky

the soviets fucked themselves in the arms race... basically getting baited into a dick-waving contest which bankrupted them. believing in jeebus crust wouldn't have fixed their economic woes

[Aztecfan03]

Don't miss out on the early football games

doesn't matter for east or central time usually, but for out here in California, yes.

[mugatu]

Atheists have been around since the beginning. Thats successful.

[xellos88330]

Atheism isn't a way of life. It's a lack of a god belief. It's not a choice.

Other than your personal god, you're atheist as well.

You can no more regulate theism/atheism than you can thought in general. After all, belief is a thought process, not an act.

Perhaps you're referring to secularism instead. If so you need to clean up your approach and clarify what it is you're railing against.

So since I have a god belief, and belief is a thought process it means that I do indeed have the power to think and use thought.

Atheists lack that belief, so does that mean that they think less and use thought less since that will have one less belief?

[xellos88330]

Atheists have been around since the beginning. Thats successful.

So has dirt.

[xellos88330]

reducing the soviets and koreans to atheism makes no sense. as i said in an earlier comment, those are failing states because of terrible economic systems and dictatorships, not because of the belief or lack of belief of a man in the sky

the soviets fucked themselves in the arms race... basically getting baited into a dick-waving contest which bankrupted them. believing in jeebus crust wouldn't have fixed their economic woes

Dictatorships huh. So of all the civilizations that have tried an atheistic approach have devolved into dictatorships that care more about their own personal pride than that of their people. Interesting, considering pride is also known as one the seven deadly sins and religion tends to attempt to teach humility. Perhaps if they had some religious thought about this, they could have avoided these catastrophes.

[AmericanPsycho]

Atheists have been around since the beginning. Thats successful.
They've existed in all societies so I too would say they've succeeded.

[purist]

Atheism is an intellectually lazy and limited view of existence. Cynicism does not equate to intelligence. On the contrary, the pursuit of understanding what is not fully known or self evident breeds greater intelligence- emotional, spiritual, and otherwise - that leads to social evolution. Dismissing the possibility of the existence of a higher being or supernatural element from consideration is limiting to the development of thought, expression, and fulfillment of the human experience. Whether one believes or not, considering the possibility of God is a worthwhile exercise that makes us more complete as people. My opinion

[xellos88330]

Atheism is an intellectually lazy and limited view of existence. Cynicism does not equate to intelligence. On the contrary, the pursuit of understanding what is not fully known or self evident breeds greater intelligence- emotional, spiritual, and otherwise - that leads to social evolution. Dismissing the possibility of the existence of a higher being or supernatural element from consideration is limiting to the development of thought, expression, and fulfillment of the human experience. Whether one believes or not, considering the possibility of God is a worthwhile exercise that makes us more complete as people. My opinion

This has been my thought exactly. I was hoping that they would figure it out themselves though. LOL!

[AmericanPsycho]

They may not be documented as having their own society or government, etc., so, what constitutes a successful civilization?

[spurraider21]

Dictatorships huh. So of all the civilizations that have tried an atheistic approach have devolved into dictatorships that care more about their own personal pride than that of their people. Interesting, considering pride is also known as one the seven deadly sins and religion tends to attempt to teach humility. Perhaps if they had some religious thought about this, they could have avoided these catastrophes.
thats dumb. we have theistic dictatorships which suck too. nothing about atheism is innately bad when it comes to a states fiscal policy. it has no bearing on the economy, which is why those states failed anyway.

[xellos88330]

thats dumb. we have theistic dictatorships which suck too. nothing about atheism is innately bad when it comes to a states fiscal policy. it has no bearing on the economy, which is why those states failed anyway.

Theistic dictatorships are definitely out there, but isn't it funny how the atheistic ones suck so much harder? I would say that Iran could be considered a theistic dictatorship. They seem to be doing fine.

[spurraider21]

Theistic dictatorships are definitely out there, but isn't it funny how the atheistic ones suck so much harder? I would say that Iran could be considered a theistic dictatorship. They seem to be doing fine.
now explain why the USSR's economy collapsed and please demonstrate why religion factored in

[DMC]

So since I have a god belief, and belief is a thought process it means that I do indeed have the power to think and use thought.

Atheists lack that belief, so does that mean that they think less and use thought less since that will have one less belief?

Yes you have the power to think and use thought.

Your thought process leads you to a conclusion based on the information at hand. For an atheist, the same information doesn't lead them to the same conclusion. It doesn't mean they think less. Belief is a thought process, belief in anything. Conscious disbelief in a god is as much a conclusion as conscious belief in one, if both people have the same information. A baby has no information, so the baby is by default atheist. It's not agnostic, as much as those people like to walk the epistemological line out of fear of commitment. The baby isn't unsure of a god's existence. The baby simply doesn't have the belief, ergo a-theist.

The problem generally arises when folks like you attempt to make atheism a religion or a belief in itself. It's neither, just as baldness isn't a hair style.

[xellos88330]

now explain why the USSR's economy collapsed and please demonstrate why religion factored in

Sure, after you explain why theist ones don't fall apart so easily.

[xellos88330]

Yes you have the power to think and use thought.

Your thought process leads you to a conclusion based on the information at hand. For an atheist, the same information doesn't lead them to the same conclusion. It doesn't mean they think less. Belief is a thought process, belief in anything. Conscious disbelief in a god is as much a conclusion as conscious belief in one, if both people have the same information. A baby has no information, so the baby is by default atheist. It's not agnostic, as much as those people like to walk the epistemological line out of fear of commitment. The baby isn't unsure of a god's existence. The baby simply doesn't have the belief, ergo a-theist.

The problem generally arises when folks like you attempt to make atheism a religion or a belief in itself. It's neither, just as baldness isn't a hair style.

Do atheists believe god does not exist?

[DMC]

Do atheists believe god does not exist?

Atheists haven't been convinced a god exists. Negative existential belief is just a talking point, can't be a reality. Belief is a positive assertive acceptance, not a negative one. You cannot form a belief of nothing. You can only form a belief of something. The statement "gods do not exist" seems positive enough, but in reality it's a negative form of the statement "god exists". So the question is "do you believe a god exists" and the atheist concludes "no".

Now on your atheist civilization, these societies you think were secular were in large theistic, they just made their leaders gods. That's still a belief in a god. Hitler was blessed by a religious figure upon command. There was blood worship. Any worship of a god or godlike figure is theism, be it Yaweh or Kim Jong Il.

[spurraider21]

Sure, after you explain why theist ones don't fall apart so easily.
should i provide a list of theist civilizations that have fallen apart? its quite the list

[xellos88330]

Atheists haven't been convinced a god exists. Negative existential belief is just a talking point, can't be a reality. Belief is a positive assertive acceptance, not a negative one. You cannot form a belief of nothing. You can only form a belief of something. The statement "gods do not exist" seems positive enough, but in reality it's a negative form of the statement "god exists". So the question is "do you believe a god exists" and the atheist concludes "no".

Now on your atheist civilization, these societies you think were secular were in large theistic, they just made their leaders gods. That's still a belief in a god. Hitler was blessed by a religious figure upon command. There was blood worship. Any worship of a god or godlike figure is theism, be it Yaweh or Kim Jong Il.

So, why is the positive form of the statement so bad?

[Blake]

Atheism is an intellectually lazy and limited view of existence.

right because making up a sky friend means you are intellectually hard at work.

[Blake]

Sure, after you explain why theist ones don't fall apart so easily.

what's your opinion on why theist societies succeed.

Is it divine force? Humans striving to please their god(s)?

Lay it out.

[redzero]

The first step for the forming of a civilization is coming together. The second step is bonding through superstition. The biggest reason not to belive in any kind of god is the variance between civilations on what "God" or religion is. The reasonable person realizes that humanity is inclined to seek out patterns, even when none exist.

To dumb it down, all religions can't be true. But they can all be false.

[DMC]

So, why is the positive form of the statement so bad?

What positive form are you referring to? If you mean "god exists", first and foremost it's non-specific to the point of being almost meaningless. If you clarify which god you're referring to, with every characteristic you paint yourself into a corner, since characteristics can be shown to be contradictory, and that's often where special pleading comes in. If logical fallacies are required to give your version of a god concept wings, it's probably not going to fly. That doesn't mean some people won't believe it. Hell, there are thousands of gods, someone has believed in each of them at some time.

[DMC]

The first step for the forming of a civilization is coming together. The second step is bonding through superstition. The biggest reason not to belive in any kind of god is the variance between civilations on what "God" or religion is. The reasonable person realizes that humanity is inclined to seek out patterns, even when none exist.

To dumb it down, all religions can't be true. But they can all be false.

This is an important point. Religions themselves aren't false, but their deity most certainly is. Even if one were true, that would make religion as a whole about 99.99% false. That fact alone makes the concept of the one true god very questionable, enough so that investigation by people who now consider themselves atheist have all led to the same conclusion; theres no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of any god or supernatural presence.

It's not like atheists looked for evidence to support their bias. Many were raised in theist households and were under the grip of religion for a good part of their upbringing. Eventually their internal doubts led them to seek out answers and what they found led them to where they are now. Historically Christians and other theists haven't investigated the veracity of their belief, even if they have sought to validate the teachings through pilgrimages and "science", like searching for the lost Ark, as if it actually exists and just needs to be found. Why look for something you firmly believe already exists? Higgs boson notwithstanding (different reason for positing it's existence), if you're looking for it already and you don't find it, you just figure you've not looked enough. Belief should be the other way around, it should come from discovery.

[DoubtingThomas]

You all have some mighty fine thoughts on this.

[purist]

right because making up a sky friend means you are intellectually hard at work.

Your response kind of proved my point. You have limited your concept of s God to s "friend in the sky". It's a snappy, cute retort, but it's a shallow view of the concept of a higher being. Understand, I don't believe everyone has to believe. You are free not to do so. But likewise, I am free to believe and should be without ridicule or assumption that if I believe it somehow indicates a lesser level of intelligence. That's my point. It seems to me that atheism has developed its structure of argument on the idea that to believe in a higher being is to be stupid or less evolved. I contend the contrary. To accept the possibility is to open the human mind to the exploration of that which is unseen yet which has so influenced humanity that it bears consideration.

[xellos88330]

What positive form are you referring to? If you mean "god exists", first and foremost it's non-specific to the point of being almost meaningless. If you clarify which god you're referring to, with every characteristic you paint yourself into a corner, since characteristics can be shown to be contradictory, and that's often where special pleading comes in. If logical fallacies are required to give your version of a god concept wings, it's probably not going to fly. That doesn't mean some people won't believe it. Hell, there are thousands of gods, someone has believed in each of them at some time.

How can you claim something as being a logical fallacy when the very logic used to determine these things is born of something that has been proven to be fallible. There are many times in science has been wrong and had to correct itself. This is where I get confused with atheism.

[xellos88330]

Your response kind of proved my point. You have limited your concept of s God to s "friend in the sky". It's a snappy, cute retort, but it's a shallow view of the concept of a higher being. Understand, I don't believe everyone has to believe. You are free not to do so. But likewise, I am free to believe and should be without ridicule or assumption that if I believe it somehow indicates a lesser level of intelligence. That's my point. It seems to me that atheism has developed its structure of argument on the idea that to believe in a higher being is to be stupid or less evolved. I contend the contrary. To accept the possibility is to open the human mind to the exploration of that which is unseen yet which has so influenced humanity that it bears consideration.

This guy gets exactly where I am coming from. Well done purist. :D

[DMC]

How can you claim something as being a logical fallacy when the very logic used to determine these things is born of something that has been proven to be fallible. There are many times in science has been wrong and had to correct itself. This is where I get confused with atheism.

Try to stay on one topic at a time until it's put to rest.

Go read about logical fallacies then read about "fallible". They aren't the same things, you're using a logical fallacy (false equivocation) in making that comparison. Too often the atheist has to educate the theist on these things, because the theist has a superficial understanding of them. That leads the atheist to think the theist also has a superficial understanding of their own belief system, since at your age you haven't delved into it more before forming your opinion on it.

[DMC]

Your response kind of proved my point. You have limited your concept of s God to s "friend in the sky". It's a snappy, cute retort, but it's a shallow view of the concept of a higher being. Understand, I don't believe everyone has to believe. You are free not to do so. But likewise, I am free to believe and should be without ridicule or assumption that if I believe it somehow indicates a lesser level of intelligence. That's my point. It seems to me that atheism has developed its structure of argument on the idea that to believe in a higher being is to be stupid or less evolved. I contend the contrary. To accept the possibility is to open the human mind to the exploration of that which is unseen yet which has so influenced humanity that it bears consideration.
It actually does indicate a lesser level of intelligence. You formed an existential belief based on feelings. You should avoid using "intellect" and "supernatural" in the same context. Yes your god is supernatural by necessity, unless you worship a corporeal being.

What if I told you I believe Santa Claus exists? Would you question my intelligence? How about my sanity?

[xellos88330]

Try to stay on one topic at a time until it's put to rest.

Go read about logical fallacies then read about "fallible". They aren't the same things, you're using a logical fallacy (false equivocation) in making that comparison. Too often the atheist has to educate the theist on these things, because the theist has a superficial understanding of them. That leads the atheist to think the theist also has a superficial understanding of their own belief system, since at your age you haven't delved into it more before forming your opinion on it.

Umm... a fallacy is usually created by something fallible is it not? Science is fallible therefore perfectly capable of creating fallacies of it's own. It isn't that difficult to make that connection.

[xellos88330]

It actually does indicate a lesser level of intelligence. You formed an existential belief based on feelings. You should avoid using "intellect" and "supernatural" in the same context. Yes your god is supernatural by necessity, unless you worship a corporeal being.

What if I told you I believe Santa Claus exists? Would you question my intelligence? How about my sanity?

Do emotions exist?

In my personal experience I have found emotions to be a very real thing. I cannot prove I love my children, I just feel it. That feeling will make me go to great lengths, even death, to protect my children. I just don't understand how someone can say that something that powerful can not exist.

[spurraider21]

what's your opinion on why theist societies succeed.

Is it divine force? Humans striving to please their god(s)?

Lay it out.
Do you realize how many theist civilizations have fallen?

[Clipper Nation]

Humans striving to please their god(s)?
Your bull refers to himself as a god?

[DMC]

Umm... a fallacy is usually created by something fallible is it not? Science is fallible therefore perfectly capable of creating fallacies of it's own. It isn't that difficult to make that connection.






Did you read the definitions like I suggested?

Let me help you out:

fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
?


a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
vs



fal·li·ble
ˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective
capable of making mistakes or being erroneous)














An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion. The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic.

There are a host of arguments out there that have been shown to have formal fallacies at the center of them, ontological argument, Pascal's wager, etc...

Fallible is a good thing, it's how science maintains integrity. Claims must be falsifiable, therefore scientists must allow that they are fallible. Religion, not so much. In religion you start off with a conclusion and work to support it, disregarding anything that doesn't agree with it like trimming away portions of a T-bone steak to call it a filet mignon... because that's what the label said it was.

So scientists don't create fallacies. They don't use flawed reasoning to come to conclusions, they misinterpret data and sometimes lie about it. Fallacies would be more like "hey this tree has an apple growing on it, therefore all trees have apples growing on them" where as fallible would be "hey there's an apple under this tree, this must then be an apple tree" when it's possibly not.

[DMC]

Do emotions exist?

That's a red herring. Your emotional episode doesn't have any historical significance where supernatural existence is concerned. Don't try to equivocate again between existence of a god and existence of an emotion.



In my personal experience I have found emotions to be a very real thing. I cannot prove I love my children, I just feel it. That feeling will make me go to great lengths, even death, to protect my children. I just don't understand how someone can say that something that powerful can not exist.

You just created a strawman (changing existence of god to existence of emotion) and now you cannot believe it.

Your children exist. No one is questioning your emotions. Your emotions don't prove that your children exist, you have to have a SSN for them at school, and probably they have to actually be there to get credit.

Since your emotions make you do probably irrational things, it could therefore be irrational that you believe in a supernatural being just because you feel emotional about the concept.

[purist]

It actually does indicate a lesser level of intelligence. You formed an existential belief based on feelings. You should avoid using "intellect" and "supernatural" in the same context. Yes your god is supernatural by necessity, unless you worship a corporeal being.

What if I told you I believe Santa Claus exists? Would you question my intelligence? How about my sanity?

If you told me Santa Claus exists, I wouldn't call you stupid. I would ask you to explain. In none of my prior posts did I mention "feelings". Feelings do not prove or disprove Existence of God. I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us. Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

[Blake]

I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us. Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

This is just a fancy spaghetti monster post.

I'll leave the possibility open because I don't care enough to militantly close it, but exactly how are you yourself exploring in your search for god?

if you've already dismissed every religion and you've delved into first cause problems, what's intellectually left for you to do?

[purist]

This is just a fancy spaghetti monster post.

I'll leave the possibility open because I don't care enough to militantly close it, but exactly how are you yourself exploring in your search for god?

if you've already dismissed every religion and you've delved into first cause problems, what's intellectually left for you to do?

You are basically asking me to give you my witness, based on your post. I won't do that because I suspect you will find it pointless, if not offensive to your personal sensibilities. What I will tell you is that my "pursuit" of answers had been a lifelong one, just as it has for countless others. I do not have all the answers, but thebjourney of discovery is continual. From the peaks to the valleys to the mundane of life, I have learned that I don't know it all, and perhaps more importantly, I don't need to know it all. That said I don't believe it served us well to ever stop trying to learn -- about all things but mostly about ourselves and our place and purpose in life. Admittedly, I cannot nor do I wish to convince you of the existence of God. I can just tell you that I believe my life has been more fulfilling and hopeful because I had such belief. So, I've made that choice. I do not want to do as some self righteous do and claim moral superiority to you or anyone else, but in return I hope you do not claim intellectual superiority because you choose atheism.

[DMC]

If you told me Santa Claus exists, I wouldn't call you stupid. I would ask you to explain.

That's been going on for two thousand years with Christianity and no explanation has ever held up to critical examination. Most falls apart at a glance in fact. That's why faith keeps getting invoked.

In none of my prior posts did I mention "feelings". Feelings do not prove or disprove Existence of God. I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. You clearly don't understand possibilities if you think supernatural is one. You not knowing doesn't mean the possibilities increase.

To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us.No it's not. It's to remove the non-falsifiable as a hiding place for one stop answer shopping. There are a finite number of possibilities even with the supernatural angle, so you're just adding one more unknown, except you're going a step further and making it unknowable.

Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. Yet those same people worshiped the same god some of you do for the same ignorant reasons. You laugh at their flat Earth belief but invisible sky man is still non falsifiable so it's still cool.

As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Or the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster, why posit what you just said isn't yet evident?

Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. They are unless you're a pseudo-scientist who holds onto the belief of creation while trying to discover the cause of the universe.

That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.
There's the "in the end" faith trump card again. Make believe doesn't give us a complete view of anything but imagination. Thousands of years ago religion was law, now you're trying to shoehorn it in with the legitimacy of science because as people learn more about the world around them, the god of the gaps recedes further into the abyss of the untapped, undiscovered realms.

In thousands of years not one verfiable account can be presented as evidence for the existence of a god. There's not one test you can run. In fact, we could both pray for different things, you to your god and me to whatever rock I find in my driveway. The odds of either being "answered" are the same, and won't rise above statistical noise in the long run.

But science keeps us moving in the right direction, while we drag your retarded bastard stepchild named "religion" along with us like an old family heirloom no one really wants.

[xellos88330]

That's a red herring. Your emotional episode doesn't have any historical significance where supernatural existence is concerned. Don't try to equivocate again between existence of a god and existence of an emotion.



You just created a strawman (changing existence of god to existence of emotion) and now you cannot believe it.

Your children exist. No one is questioning your emotions. Your emotions don't prove that your children exist, you have to have a SSN for them at school, and probably they have to actually be there to get credit.

Since your emotions make you do probably irrational things, it could therefore be irrational that you believe in a supernatural being just because you feel emotional about the concept.

Science is incomplete. This is a fact.

My argument of atheism not being capable enough to support a progressive civilization is based on historical fact. There have been some more modern societies that have tried, but they all have failed, or are struggling mightily. Once again, this is a historical fact. So is it wrong of me to conclude that atheism is not a viable choice for the advancement of society?

[xellos88330]

Did you read the definitions like I suggested?

Let me help you out:

fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
?


a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
vs



fal·li·ble
ˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective
capable of making mistakes or being erroneous)














An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion. The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic.

There are a host of arguments out there that have been shown to have formal fallacies at the center of them, ontological argument, Pascal's wager, etc...

Fallible is a good thing, it's how science maintains integrity. Claims must be falsifiable, therefore scientists must allow that they are fallible. Religion, not so much. In religion you start off with a conclusion and work to support it, disregarding anything that doesn't agree with it like trimming away portions of a T-bone steak to call it a filet mignon... because that's what the label said it was.

So scientists don't create fallacies. They don't use flawed reasoning to come to conclusions, they misinterpret data and sometimes lie about it. Fallacies would be more like "hey this tree has an apple growing on it, therefore all trees have apples growing on them" where as fallible would be "hey there's an apple under this tree, this must then be an apple tree" when it's possibly not.

How many friggin people believe the big bang theory is correct? It could very well be a fallacy because it is a mistaken belief in the big bang being correct. This happened because the scientist themselves are capable of making mistakes or erroneous.

Scientists being fallible are more than capable of producing fallacies. Reputation matters in the science world and if you publish your work, you better have an awful lot of faith in it to put your career on the line.

[ChumpDumper]

So basically it doesn't matter what god/s some "civilization" believes in, just that they do?

[DMC]

Science is incomplete. This is a fact.

E=MC is incomplete, doesn't mean the possibilities open up. It's still 2, known or not known. Saying "E=MC God" Doesn't answer the equation any more than "E=MC?"

Calling science incomplete is just a way of attempting to normalize religion and science to show both of them as flawed. So what? Science is a process of study and research and discovery. Religion is the worship and lifestyle according to ancient texts regarding an invisible sky master. Stop trying to compare them. It's like comparing apples and pancakes.


My argument of atheism not being capable enough to support a progressive civilization is based on historical fact. There have been some more modern societies that have tried, but they all have failed, or are struggling mightily. Once again, this is a historical fact. So is it wrong of me to conclude that atheism is not a viable choice for the advancement of society?
You keep using that circular reasoning. It's true because it's a fact. Saying it twice doesn't make it more true. Give some examples and I'll show you how they weren't actually using atheism as a form of government.

[DMC]

How many friggin people believe the big bang theory is correct?

Doesn't matter. Argument by popularity is a fallacious argument. If it's true it's true regardless who believes it, but it wasn't just posited and ridden in with "faith" as a precursor.

It could very well be a fallacy because it is a mistaken belief in the big bang being correct. This happened because the scientist themselves are capable of making mistakes or erroneous.

Belief in scientific discoveries isn't in the same epistemology state as belief in a god. With the BBT, there's no life altering change required to accept it until proven otherwise. With religion, you accept it against all evidence otherwise. In fact, the evidence against your belief is what your texts say should strengthen it, for what man could devise such a system and hide it so well? Babel fish you know.


Scientists being fallible are more than capable of producing fallacies. Reputation matters in the science world and if you publish your work, you better have an awful lot of faith in it to put your career on the line.
Scientists can use fallacious reasoning to come to wrong conclusions or they can use it to come to correct conclusions. The reasoning is what's at stake here, not the conclusion.

If a scientist said "because water freezes at -32 degrees Celsius, this ice cube will not melt in this freezer that's at -33 degree Celsius"

The ice cube wouldn't change states simply because the reasoning was flawed. It's still cold enough in the freezer to keep the ice cube frozen, even though the scientist used flawed reasoning to state a true statement "this ice cube will not melt". With religion, the conclusion is posited first, a god exists. After that the reasoning begins...because the universe exists, because trees don't look man made, because a watch in the desert, because a tornado missed my house, because miracle of birth, because I heard someone healed, because we don't know...

At the end of all those "because" statements you can put the conclusion "god exists". None of them change the fact of the existence or non existence of god, but they are flawed reasoning. Since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (or the flying spaghetti monster), we rely heavily on the reasoning to be pristine and infallible to draw extraordinary conclusions. It's far from it.

I have published works and there's no faith involved. You do the method and you do it again and then you do it again. Then you have someone else do it, then you try to defeat it, to find an exception, and when you don't and when they don't you publish it. There's no faith. If anything there's a total lack of faith. That's why it's called "peer review".

[xellos88330]

So basically it doesn't matter what god/s some "civilization" believes in, just that they do?

Trying to turn this into a religion vs. religion thing huh?

I for one believe in a transcendent god. God could take any form, or as many forms as it wishes. It is possible that all of them are right.

Science is not capable of testing transcendence. A person cannot say that god does not exist when they have no means to test transcendence.

[xellos88330]

Doesn't matter. Argument by popularity is a fallacious argument. If it's true it's true regardless who believes it, but it wasn't just posited and ridden in with "faith" as a precursor.

Belief in scientific discoveries isn't in the same epistemology state as belief in a god. With the BBT, there's no life altering change required to accept it until proven otherwise. With religion, you accept it against all evidence otherwise. In fact, the evidence against your belief is what your texts say should strengthen it, for what man could devise such a system and hide it so well? Babel fish you know.

Scientists can use fallacious reasoning to come to wrong conclusions or they can use it to come to correct conclusions. The reasoning is what's at stake here, not the conclusion.

If a scientist said "because water freezes at -32 degrees Celsius, this ice cube will not melt in this freezer that's at -33 degree Celsius"

The ice cube wouldn't change states simply because the reasoning was flawed. It's still cold enough in the freezer to keep the ice cube frozen, even though the scientist used flawed reasoning to state a true statement "this ice cube will not melt". With religion, the conclusion is posited first, a god exists. After that the reasoning begins...because the universe exists, because trees don't look man made, because a watch in the desert, because a tornado missed my house, because miracle of birth, because I heard someone healed, because we don't know...

At the end of all those "because" statements you can put the conclusion "god exists". None of them change the fact of the existence or non existence of god, but they are flawed reasoning. Since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (or the flying spaghetti monster), we rely heavily on the reasoning to be pristine and infallible to draw extraordinary conclusions. It's far from it.

I have published works and there's no faith involved. You do the method and you do it again and then you do it again. Then you have someone else do it, then you try to defeat it, to find an exception, and when you don't and when they don't you publish it. There's no faith. If anything there's a total lack of faith. That's why it's called "peer review".

Then how are published works still found to be wrong? Wouldn't you need faith in your colleagues' ability to correctly go through the same processes as diligently as yourself? No matter what you do, a degree of faith is always required. ESPECIALLY if you are working with other people.

In order for god to exist, god must be transcendent. Science is incapable of testing transcendence so the possibility remains. Is it really that hard to understand?

[spurraider21]

Trying to turn this into a religion vs. religion thing huh?

I for one believe in a transcendent god. God could take any form, or as many forms as it wishes. It is possible that all of them are right.

Science is not capable of testing transcendence. A person cannot say that god does not exist when they have no means to test transcendence.
what specifically has led you to this exact belief? so you believe in a creator... cool. why is it transcendent and can take any or as many forms as it wishes? where did that part of your belief come from?

[xellos88330]

E=MC is incomplete, doesn't mean the possibilities open up. It's still 2, known or not known. Saying "E=MC God" Doesn't answer the equation any more than "E=MC?"

Calling science incomplete is just a way of attempting to normalize religion and science to show both of them as flawed. So what? Science is a process of study and research and discovery. Religion is the worship and lifestyle according to ancient texts regarding an invisible sky master. Stop trying to compare them. It's like comparing apples and pancakes.

You keep using that circular reasoning. It's true because it's a fact. Saying it twice doesn't make it more true. Give some examples and I'll show you how they weren't actually using atheism as a form of government.

That is not what religion is at all. You once pointed me to the dictionary, so now I will do the same.

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Isn't science trying to find the cause, nature and purpose of the universe too? How is it so ridiculous to compare the two? They both are doing pretty much the same thing. Science also uses ancient texts and teachings as well. 1+1=2 was probably figured out before there were even written languages.

[xellos88330]

what specifically has led you to this exact belief? so you believe in a creator... cool. why is it transcendent and can take any or as many forms as it wishes? where did that part of your belief come from?

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

[ChumpDumper]

Trying to turn this into a religion vs. religion thing huh?Nope.


I for one believe in a transcendent god. God could take any form, or as many forms as it wishes. It is possible that all of them are right.

Science is not capable of testing transcendence. A person cannot say that god does not exist when they have no means to test transcendence.Well good for you. It's just as possible that all of them are wrong, so it's just as easy to not believe in any god or simply not waste time trying to define something that one admits can never be defined.

[ChumpDumper]

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.lol

Who created the transcendent creator?

[Koolaid_Man]

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

Wow...very well stated...I dont think there's a legit arguement to this...sure there are questions on both sides but there's way more clarity on the side of the creationist vs.the evolutionist....because you've just disproved their own theories with science...and validated our own through that same science beyond a reasonable doubt.

Listen I used to think evolution may have a point but their science could only take me to the proverbial waters edge....but thats where the road ended....when faced with 2 choices I had no choice but to go with creationism because even if there are deep questions on both sides creationism gave me more...and I logically concluded that if there is a God of course he would always remain a mystery to us because he's not physicsl he's spiritual...it's a different dimension and only reasonably minded,people get it....just like we cant understand how gas giants such as the sun are formed with a solid core to support and be replicated as the center of most galaxies we'll never understsnd the being or entity that created it all...if we die and become a spirit then it will all make sense....

Until then crestionism is the most reasonsble science....just because I cannot see wind gravity, and nuclear forces doesn't mean they arent there...

[purist]

Like I said before, my point is not to sway anyone into belief. It's quite obvious that the notion of belief is offensive to some of you and that you take a posture of superiority over those that claim belief. I don't understand why it matters so much to you that some choose believe. Does God exist? I say yes, but my response is based on my own personal experiences and reasoning. Certainly there are historical and archaeological artifacts that corroborate texts of the bible, but that doesn't necessarily prove god exists. I get it. But it is not "retarded" to believe. It's my prerogative, just as its your to not believe. So I guess what I'm trying to say is Get Over It!

[DMC]

Then how are published works still found to be wrong? Wouldn't you need faith in your colleagues' ability to correctly go through the same processes as diligently as yourself? No matter what you do, a degree of faith is always required. ESPECIALLY if you are working with other people.

In order for god to exist, god must be transcendent. Science is incapable of testing transcendence so the possibility remains. Is it really that hard to understand?
You're again falsely equivocating faith with trust. You don't use a friend/colleague. The editor handles the peer review, after all it's his neck on the line.

Besides, how do we ever know they are wrong? Other scientists line up in droves to disprove these things. Checks and balances. Can it still be wrong? Absolutely, but no one is worshiping it and everyone is attacking it non stop.

Again, not knowing doesn't increase possibility. Why do you bypass reason just re restate your flawed point? Are you trolling?

[DMC]

Science dictates that you cannot create something from nothing. If there was nothing to create the universe, then how could the universe even be created? The big bang requires energy to create matter, but what created the energy to create the matter? If there was only energy, something had to create it since you cannot create it without anything. Something had to exist beyond physical reality to create the energy to spark the big bang. That existence would transcend our physical reality. Therefore, only something transcendent with the ability to affect our reality could create the universe. Something that is capable of such a feat, should be able to affect our physical reality because it has already done it once before.

This is a form of the ontological argument or argument from design. It's been thoroughly debated and defeated by minds sharper than ours and the materials and videos are out there if you care to research it. If you don't, you shouldn't even be discussing it. Just lean on faith and tell that old devil to get behind you. You don't need an 11th century argument to support your faith in your god and it certainly doesn't discriminate between the thousands of suggested gods; any will do for the argument.

[DMC]

Like I said before, my point is not to sway anyone into belief. It's quite obvious that the notion of belief is offensive to some of you and that you take a posture of superiority over those that claim belief. I don't understand why it matters so much to you that some choose believe. Does God exist? I say yes, but my response is based on my own personal experiences and reasoning. Certainly there are historical and archaeological artifacts that corroborate texts of the bible, but that doesn't necessarily prove god exists. I get it. But it is not "retarded" to believe. It's my prerogative, just as its your to not believe. So I guess what I'm trying to say is Get Over It!
This is the "mad at god" argument.

Why don't you use reason in your approach instead of emotive jargon? Where are the historical artifacts that prove a god exists? Are you moving the goal posts to historicity of the bible?

It comes down to faith, again, because there's no evidence.

[DMC]

That is not what religion is at all. You once pointed me to the dictionary, so now I will do the same.

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Isn't science trying to find the cause, nature and purpose of the universe too? How is it so ridiculous to compare the two? They both are doing pretty much the same thing. Science also uses ancient texts and teachings as well. 1+1=2 was probably figured out before there were even written languages.

Science is doing none of the above. The "cause" aspect is construct of the human ego. Science explains how, not why, not in the sense you're referring to.

[xellos88330]

lol

Who created the transcendent creator?

This is where atheists often get confused by trying to apply laws that govern our realm of physical reality to that of transcendence.

Why would you try to bind transcendence to the laws of our physical reality, when it is perfectly capable of transcending that law to begin with? That makes absolutely no sense.

[xellos88330]

Science is doing none of the above. The "cause" aspect is construct of the human ego. Science explains how, not why, not in the sense you're referring to.

sci·ence


/ˈsīəns/


noun

noun: science




the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Sounds a lot like it is studying the nature of the universe to me. Otherwise, theories like the big bang wouldn't exist.

[Koolaid_Man]

If you told me Santa Claus exists, I wouldn't call you stupid. I would ask you to explain. In none of my prior posts did I mention "feelings". Feelings do not prove or disprove Existence of God. I am referring to exploring the unknown or uncertain and leaving open the possibility that something greater than us may have influenced how and what we have come to be. To summarily dismiss the possibility of a higher being is to limit the options available to us. Eg mankind once thought the earth was flat because every known evidence at the time limited the possibilities to just that. As we explore and learn more about the human mind, could it be that the possibility of God could become more evident? Where Christianity and other religions have failed is in espousing the ides that science and belief in God are mutually exclusive. That too is a limited view. Science and spirituality when considered together gives us a more complete view of our existence, regardless of whether you believe or not. In the end it's a personal choice and it should always be, but that should not prevent us from sharing and discussing our views, however different they may be.

Dam your good

[Koolaid_Man]

This is where atheists often get confused by trying to apply laws that govern our realm of physical reality to that of transcendence.

Why would you try to bind transcendence to the laws of our physical reality, when it is perfectly capable of transcending that law to begin with? That makes absolutely no sense.

You're good too...

[Koolaid_Man]

DMC and Chumper..yall should throw in the towel

[DMC]

sci·ence


/ˈsīəns/


noun

noun: science




the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Sounds a lot like it is studying the nature of the universe to me. Otherwise, theories like the big bang wouldn't exist.

Science doesn't concern itself with cause, not in the sense religion does (which is where you're going with it) so no, when you lump all that together as a condition, it fails as a condition. I don't see the word "cause" in your description. I expect you to falsely equivocate different meaning of the word "cause" to try to show they are the same thing though, so go ahead.

Also, I am still waiting for these evidences of the existence of your god and proof of the OP. What societies failed that were run by the concepts of atheism?

[xellos88330]

This is a form of the ontological argument or argument from design. It's been thoroughly debated and defeated by minds sharper than ours and the materials and videos are out there if you care to research it. If you don't, you shouldn't even be discussing it. Just lean on faith and tell that old devil to get behind you. You don't need an 11th century argument to support your faith in your god and it certainly doesn't discriminate between the thousands of suggested gods; any will do for the argument.

I am trying to research it, but am only finding stuff on the movie "transcendence" LOL!!! I don't use google much and prefer to stick to my own knowledge base and not that of others. :D

[xellos88330]

Science doesn't concern itself with cause, not in the sense religion does (which is where you're going with it) so no, when you lump all that together as a condition, it fails as a condition. I don't see the word "cause" in your description. I expect you to falsely equivocate different meaning of the word "cause" to try to show they are the same thing though, so go ahead.

Also, I am still waiting for these evidences of the existence of your god and proof of the OP. What societies failed that were run by the concepts of atheism?

Scientific principle of CAUSE and effect. If it didn't concern itself with cause, then how in the hell does it come up with that?

[ChumpDumper]

This is where atheists often get confused by trying to apply laws that govern our realm of physical reality to that of transcendence.

Why would you try to bind transcendence to the laws of our physical reality, when it is perfectly capable of transcending that law to begin with? That makes absolutely no sense.This is where theists often get confused and abandon anything resembling logic, resorting to super-defensive patronizing.

Why would God deliberately make himself impossible to understand to his own greatest creation? That makes absolutely no sense. God, by your own definition, will absolutely never make any sense.

[ChumpDumper]

DMC and Chumper..yall should throw in the towelI know it will always come down to a matter of faith and an embracing of the irrational and illogical, so it's no skin off my back.

All I have to ask a devout theist is to prove god exists and the backflips and ad hominems begin.

[xellos88330]

This is where theists often get confused and abandon anything resembling logic, resorting to super-defensive patronizing.

Why would God deliberately make himself impossible to understand to his own greatest creation? That makes absolutely no sense. God, by your own definition, will absolutely never make any sense.

That is exactly correct. God won't make any sense because we are only able to observe and test within the limitations of our own physical reality. You see all the contradictions in the bible right? They just don't make sense. Thou shalt not kill, yet god kills. It doesn't make sense. You kind of getting my point?

[ChumpDumper]

That is exactly correct. God won't make any sense because we are only able to observe and test within the limitations of our own physical reality. You see all the contradictions in the bible right? They just don't make sense. Thou shalt not kill, yet god kills. It doesn't make sense.Exactly.

So why did God make himself completely unknowable and also made himself known as a capricious, jealous, murderous dick?

[xellos88330]

I will let you know if I ever figure out the answer myself. lol!

[DMC]

I am trying to research it, but am only finding stuff on the movie "transcendence" LOL!!! I don't use google much and prefer to stick to my own knowledge base and not that of others. :D

Just use Wikipedia.

[xellos88330]

Just use Wikipedia.

I thought people could edit the entries though. I can't bring myself to fully trust it, but I will take a look.

[DMC]

That is exactly correct. God won't make any sense because we are only able to observe and test within the limitations of our own physical reality. You see all the contradictions in the bible right? They just don't make sense. Thou shalt not kill, yet god kills. It doesn't make sense. You kind of getting my point?
Why do you believe something exists that you have just stated you cannot ever possibly understand?

The concept of god isn't limited to Christian ones. The term "prime mover" is about as far back as theists have pushed god into the gaps currently. Some have pushed the god out of existence by saying it's no longer around and just set things in motion, always relying on crediting the same unknowable supernatural deity for something, anything.

[DMC]

I thought people could edit the entries though. I can't bring myself to fully trust it, but I will take a look.

Look at ontological and cosmological arguments. Look at Pascal's wager. Look at logical fallacies.

[xellos88330]

Why do you believe something exists that you have just stated you cannot ever possibly understand?

The concept of god isn't limited to Christian ones. The term "prime mover" is about as far back as theists have pushed god into the gaps currently. Some have pushed the god out of existence by saying it's no longer around and just set things in motion, always relying on crediting the same unknowable supernatural deity for something, anything.

Why do you believe that the universe exists when you cannot possibly understand everything in the universe? There used to be belief that the world was flat. We didn't know any better and all empirical evidence pointed us to that conclusion. It turned out to be very wrong. So logically, one should question what we really know at any given time and question whether or not it is actual truth.

I choose to believe that we do not know the actual truth. The truth is simply given a name... god.

[DMC]

Why do you believe that the universe exists when you cannot possibly understand everything in the universe? There used to be belief that the world was flat. We didn't know any better and all empirical evidence pointed us to that conclusion. It turned out to be very wrong. So logically, one should question what we really know at any given time and question whether or not it is actual truth.

I choose to believe that we do not know the actual truth. The truth is simply given a name... god.

It would do you good to brush up on terms and concepts such as belief and truth. Read about epistemology. If you don't want to bother with any of it, as seems to be the case, that's your loss but you'll have plenty company.

I've addressed the flat Earthers in this thread already. Do you read any of this? You post like Mouse.

[Koolaid_Man]

It would do you good to brush up on terms and concepts such as belief and truth. Read about epistemology. If you don't want to bother with any of it, as seems to be the case, that's your loss but you'll have plenty company.

I've addressed the flat Earthers in this thread already. Do you read any of this? You post like Mouse.



Seems he's smarter than you DMC..he's winning and tbh I think he has your number

[xeromass]

a) In last few hundred years there was a huge scientific progress in our understanding of the world. Not exactly enough time to create a civilization. I also don't think it will be a binary situation - there will be just less and less believers.

b) You don't seem to understand how atheist Europe actually is. Eurobarometer poll from 2010, statement was "I believe there is a God".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

Countries where less than 50% answered with yes:

Czech Republic 16%
Sweden 18%
Estonia 18%
Norway (EEA, not EU) 22%
France 27%
Netherlands 28%
Denmark 28%
Iceland (EEA, not EU) 31%
Slovenia 32%
Finland 33%
Bulgaria 36%
Belgium 37%
United Kingdom 37%
Latvia 38%
Germany 44%
Austria 44%
Switzerland (EFTA) 44%
Hungary 45%
Luxembourg 46%
Lithuania 47%

[xellos88330]

It would do you good to brush up on terms and concepts such as belief and truth. Read about epistemology. If you don't want to bother with any of it, as seems to be the case, that's your loss but you'll have plenty company.

I've addressed the flat Earthers in this thread already. Do you read any of this? You post like Mouse.


This is a perfect example on how atheists can never have a successful civilization. You have to make sure that every little statement jives with every single word in the fucking dictionary. It is a miracle that any of you are able to get anything done at all. You atheists crack me up.

I did read your post about flat earth. Does it change the fact that the science behind flat earth theory was wrong? It sure doesn't. Why is science capable of being wrong so difficult to accept for you atheists? Science can be wrong. It really is that simple. You reject the idea of god because there is no tangible scientific evidence that a god is possible. I reject your conclusion because you are using a method that has been wrong multiple times in the past to derive your evidence and draw your conclusion.

[DMC]

This is a perfect example on how atheists can never have a successful civilization. You have to make sure that every little statement jives with every single word in the fucking dictionary. It is a miracle that any of you are able to get anything done at all. You atheists crack me up.

So you should be able to just say whatever you want and equivocate it with any other usage of the same word and the discussion should move right along?lol

Don't you hate it when people make you learn the definition of words you use?


I did read your post about flat earth. Does it change the fact that the science behind flat earth theory was wrong? It sure doesn't. Why is science capable of being wrong so difficult to accept for you atheists? Science can be wrong. It really is that simple. You reject the idea of god because there is no tangible scientific evidence that a god is possible. I reject your conclusion because you are using a method that has been wrong multiple times in the past to derive your evidence and draw your conclusion.
What science? "hey, we can't see anything out there, must be flat"? Isn't that how religion works? "hey, we cannot see how the universe started, must be a god"?

Possible is irrelevant. I don't reject things because they haven't been proven to be possible. I reject things that are absurd, like the notion of a god, especially a personal god and especially from someone who balks at learning the meanings of words.

It's amusing that you try to use ignorance (flat Earth) as your leaning post yet you're supporting a several thousand year old belief system that was around when the flat Earthers existed. So you obviously think they did something right. Oh but it's spiritual... just so happens your spirit is a Western culture god spirit instead of middle East Allah or some other made up deity.

[Blake]

Like I said before, my point is not to sway anyone into belief. It's quite obvious that the notion of belief is offensive to some of you and that you take a posture of superiority over those that claim belief. I don't understand why it matters so much to you that some choose believe. Does God exist? I say yes, but my response is based on my own personal experiences and reasoning. Certainly there are historical and archaeological artifacts that corroborate texts of the bible, but that doesn't necessarily prove god exists. I get it. But it is not "retarded" to believe. It's my prerogative, just as its your to not believe. So I guess what I'm trying to say is Get Over It!

But you said this:


Atheism is an intellectually lazy and limited view of existence.............Whether one believes or not, considering the possibility of God is a worthwhile exercise that makes us more complete as people. My opinion

the only exercise I see is an exercise in imagination. If you want to keep ascribing a higher power to the supposed order and beauty etc to the universe, that's fine, but don't act like it's an exercise in logical or critical thinking.

And don't tell me to "get over it" when creationists like yourself try to push this imagination into public policy.

[Blake]

So basically it doesn't matter what god/s some "civilization" believes in, just that they do?

apparently believing in Zeus is better than being an atheist per op logic.

[xellos88330]

So you should be able to just say whatever you want and equivocate it with any other usage of the same word and the discussion should move right along?lol

Don't you hate it when people make you learn the definition of words you use?

What science? "hey, we can't see anything out there, must be flat"? Isn't that how religion works? "hey, we cannot see how the universe started, must be a god"?

Possible is irrelevant. I don't reject things because they haven't been proven to be possible. I reject things that are absurd, like the notion of a god, especially a personal god and especially from someone who balks at learning the meanings of words.

It's amusing that you try to use ignorance (flat Earth) as your leaning post yet you're supporting a several thousand year old belief system that was around when the flat Earthers existed. So you obviously think they did something right. Oh but it's spiritual... just so happens your spirit is a Western culture god spirit instead of middle East Allah or some other made up deity.

Truth is a word for fact or reality. Belief is simply an acceptance of truth. I do not balk at the definition of words that I already know. Perhaps a person that thinks atheism isn't based on belief should be the one looking up definitions.
How can an atheist possibly have a belief structure? It is very simple. "God does not exist" is accepted as being true. Therefore, having accepted that conclusion as truth, it has become a belief. Surprising since atheists look down on the religious because of their beliefs.

Wow... and you say my arguments don't make any sense. You just contradicted yourself.

"I don't reject things because they haven't been proven to be possible. I reject things that are absurd, like the notion of a god, especially a personal god and especially from someone who balks at learning the meanings of words."

How can you reject a notion that you claim to be absurd since the possibility of that notion exists?

[xellos88330]

apparently believing in Zeus is better than being an atheist per op logic.

Does it matter what it is called? Can we claim to know the true nature of god? No we cannot. A transcendent god can easily be everything and nothing in our physical reality.

[Blake]

Does it matter what it is called? Can we claim to know the true nature of god? No we cannot. A transcendent god can easily be everything and nothing in our physical reality.

you're not familiar with Greek or Roman mythology huh.

even then, it has nothing to do with your thread that's horribly based on false cause/ correlation = causation...

....which isn't really correlated to begin with because of so many failures of theistic civilizations.

terrible thread, terrible premise. No offense.

[xellos88330]

you're not familiar with Greek or Roman mythology huh.

even then, it has nothing to do with your thread that's horribly based on false cause/ correlation = causation...

....which isn't really correlated to begin with because of so many failures of theistic civilizations.

terrible thread, terrible premise. No offense.

I am very familiar with mythology from many different cultures, they are actually one of my favorite things to read about.

I never said that a theist civilization has never failed. You keep making shit up. Which is also a hypocrisy of yours since you look down on the religious who have "made god up". What I am saying is that NO atheist civilization has succeeded or progressed as far as theist civilizations have. Perhaps you should stop trying to do these mental gymnastics because you clearly aren't intellectually flexible enough to try. No offense.

[Blake]

I never said that a theist civilization has never failed.

gee you'd think a civilization that worshipped God wouldn't fail.

[Blake]

I am very familiar with mythology from many different cultures, they are actually one of my favorite things to read about.


Oh so since we agree the Roman gods were myth, what do you base their success upon?

[purist]

But you said this:



the only exercise I see is an exercise in imagination. If you want to keep ascribing a higher power to the supposed order and beauty etc to the universe, that's fine, but don't act like it's an exercise in logical or critical thinking.

And don't tell me to "get over it" when creationists like yourself try to push this imagination into public policy.

I never said anything about public policy. You are painting with too broad a brush. Public policy in a democracy such as ours should allow for the freedom of belief or non belief, but not show preference to one over another.

[DMC]

Truth is a word for fact or reality. Belief is simply an acceptance of truth.

So then all beliefs are based on truths, ergo every god belief is true as is every other belief of anything, ever.

I do not balk at the definition of words that I already know. Perhaps a person that thinks atheism isn't based on belief should be the one looking up definitions.
Atheism is pertaining to belief, but not based on belief. It's based on non-belief.


How can an atheist possibly have a belief structure? It is very simple. "God does not exist" is accepted as being true. Therefore, having accepted that conclusion as truth, it has become a belief. Surprising since atheists look down on the religious because of their beliefs.

Right, atheism is a belief system just like abstinence is a sexual position. After all, it's still about abstaining from SEX...


Wow... and you say my arguments don't make any sense. You just contradicted yourself.

No, you did with your silly strawmen.


"I don't reject things because they haven't been proven to be possible. I reject things that are absurd, like the notion of a god, especially a personal god and especially from someone who balks at learning the meanings of words."

How can you reject a notion that you claim to be absurd since the possibility of that notion exists?

1. Who said it exists?

2. Why do you think not having an answer increases the possibilities?



Do you know if a purple unicorn that plays a pink piano exists on an Earth like planet somewhere in the universe? If not, does that increase the possibility that it does?
If you leave your keys in you car and forget, does you not knowing where they are mean they could now be anywhere? After all, you not knowing increases the possibilities.
Once you remember where you left them, did all the random places your keys could possibly be become no longer viable, based solely on your recollection?


This is why I suggested you brush up on epistemology, else you come across as simple minded and ignorant and that's not conducive to good discussion.

Until you do that you need to stop trying to joust with me on this issue, you're not even making any sense.

[Blake]

I never said anything about public policy. You are painting with too broad a brush. Public policy in a democracy such as ours should allow for the freedom of belief or non belief, but not show preference to one over another.

No, I brought up public policy on my own because that's really what this all boils down to. If Christians kept it to themselves, I'm pretty sure non religious folk would care very little except for an occasional lol.

[DMC]

I never said anything about public policy. You are painting with too broad a brush. Public policy in a democracy such as ours should allow for the freedom of belief or non belief, but not show preference to one over another.

What does that mean, exactly? Do you mean they should pass no law respecting the establishment of religion? What are you saying exactly, stop being so vague.

[DMC]

No, I brought up public policy on my own because that's really what this all boils down to. If Christians kept it to themselves, I'm pretty sure non religious folk would care very little except for an occasional lol.
But they can't. The very religion itself is about spreading the gospel, letting everyone know the good news... that Jesus loves you and such. Of course if you tell them their god has no basis in history they'll say you've infringed upon their rights.

[Blake]

But they can't. The very religion itself is about spreading the gospel, letting everyone know the good news... that Jesus loves you and such. Of course if you tell them their god has no basis in history they'll say you've infringed upon their rights.

And then they'll start a glutehurt thread about atheism

[xellos88330]

So then all beliefs are based on truths, ergo every god belief is true as is every other belief of anything, ever.

According to the dictionary yes. Belief is an acceptance of truth. Don't blame me if the dictionary that you love so much works against you.


Atheism is pertaining to belief, but not based on belief. It's based on non-belief.

Right, atheism is a belief system just like abstinence is a sexual position. After all, it's still about abstaining from SEX...




No, you did with your silly strawmen.


1. Who said it exists?

2. Why do you think not having an answer increases the possibilities?



Do you know if a purple unicorn that plays a pink piano exists on an Earth like planet somewhere in the universe? If not, does that increase the possibility that it does?
If you leave your keys in you car and forget, does you not knowing where they are mean they could now be anywhere? After all, you not knowing increases the possibilities.
Once you remember where you left them, did all the random places your keys could possibly be become no longer viable, based solely on your recollection?


Who is talking about increasing possibility? I am merely stating that the possibility exists. You are the one trying to twist my words into saying that it increases the chance. Your need to be correct is causing you to twist something very simple into something more complicated. Let me state this again...

Because we do not know everything, the possibility of a god exists.

Nowhere in that statement does it say "increasing" possibility.

And yes, if I left my keys in the car and forgot where I left them, would it be completely wrong of me to assume that someone stole the car that the keys were in and made off with the car and parked it in a random place making my keys be in a different place? No it wouldn't because I do not know where my keys are. What you are seeing is the complete difference in thinking styles of a believer and a non-believer. You are stuck with the notion of the keys being forgotten in the exact same place I would have forgotten them, while I focus on what could have happened to the keys while forgotten. You may think that my scenario is laughable, but then again, life was born on this planet due to "random chance".

The possibility that the keys could be in a different location than I presume to have left them exists because the keys were forgotten. Therefore, the possibility of god is relevant because we do not know all of the answers to the creation of the universe.

Why do people buy lottery tickets when the odds are so terrible? Well, because there is a possibility to win it. You would say not to waste your money, yet a winner would laugh in your face.


This is why I suggested you brush up on epistemology, else you come across as simple minded and ignorant and that's not conducive to good discussion.

Until you do that you need to stop trying to joust with me on this issue, you're not even making any sense.

Simple minded and ignorant huh? After that poorly thought up list? You appear to be the simple minded one because my spectrum of thought appears to be much broader than yours.

[Blake]

Because we do not know everything, the possibility of a god exists.


mmmm spaghetti

[Blake]

Simple minded and ignorant huh? After that poorly thought up list? You appear to be the simple minded one because my spectrum of thought appears to be much broader than yours.

all you're saying here is that you believe your imagination is bigger than his

[xellos88330]

all you're saying here is that you believe your imagination is bigger than his

And what has ever been accomplished without imagination? Would we have satelittes in space if someone didn't imagine the possibility? Would we have airplanes, cars, tame animals???

[Blake]

And what has ever been accomplished without imagination? Would we have satelittes in space if someone didn't imagine the possibility? Would we have airplanes, cars, tame animals???

for sure we wouldn't have the Bible without imagination.

[Blake]

Oh so since we agree the Roman gods were myth, what do you base their success upon?

[xellos88330]

How do you know that it is myth? Roman gods haven't been disproven. Does the fact that I say "mythology" make me agree it is only myth? No it doesn't. I just merely chose the popular terminology so others can understand what I am talking about. So yeah... try again.

[xellos88330]

for sure we wouldn't have the Bible without imagination.

Hell, you wouldn't be you if your father hadn't entertained the possibility of what it would be like to fuck your mother. You can rip on the Bible all you want, it doesn't bother me at all as I have had conversations with you about my idea of the bible in other threads. Then again, you probably already forgotten that.

Once again, stop trying mental gymnastics to try to get an edge on me.. you are not intellectually flexible enough to try it.

[Blake]

How do you know that it is myth? Roman gods haven't been disproven. Does the fact that I say "mythology" make me agree it is only myth? No it doesn't. I just merely chose the popular terminology so others can understand what I am talking about. So yeah... try again.

well yeah, using the term mythology denotes myth, so you need to try again.

Spaghetti monster aside, Constantine ditched the Roman gods for christianity and the Roman gods did nothing about it. There is also no evidence that Roman gods ever walked the earth. I think it's safe to say it's myth.

[Blake]

Hell, you wouldn't be you if your father hadn't entertained the possibility of what it would be like to fuck your mother. You can rip on the Bible all you want, it doesn't bother me at all as I have had conversations with you about my idea of the bible in other threads. Then again, you probably already forgotten that.

Once again, stop trying mental gymnastics to try to get an edge on me.. you are not intellectually flexible enough to try it.

more logical fallacies. Seriously, go look them up to understand where you are in terms on intellectual flexibility

[xellos88330]

well yeah, using the term mythology denotes myth, so you need to try again.

Spaghetti monster aside, Constantine ditched the Roman gods for christianity and the Roman gods did nothing about it. There is also no evidence that Roman gods ever walked the earth. I think it's safe to say it's myth.

Were you alive then? It is a well known fact that history cannot tell the whole story. How much history did Persia destroy when they sacked Athens? How about when Rome was sacked? Such a simpleton. This is especially true if you are going to use a invocation of popular terminology to attempt to ridicule me. Now not only are you intellectually inflexible, you are also petty.

[Avante]

I never met an atheist that wasn;t either stupid or a punk. As we can see we have one here who is both.

Miserable little shits.

[Blake]

Were you alive then? It is a well known fact that history cannot tell the whole story. How much history did Persia destroy when they sacked Athens? How about when Rome was sacked? Such a simpleton. This is especially true if you are going to use a invocation of popular terminology to attempt to ridicule me. Now not only are you intellectually inflexible, you are also petty.

Well, it's not on me to disprove their existence. It's on the believer to prove their existence.

If you can't do it then gtfo.

[Blake]

I never met an atheist that wasn;t either stupid or a punk. As we can see we have one here who is both.

Miserable little shits.

Miserable fat fuck

[DMC]

According to the dictionary yes. Belief is an acceptance of truth. Don't blame me if the dictionary that you love so much works against you.


noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

No where does it say that belief is acceptance of the truth. Is your reading comprehension really this poor are or you just being dishonest for the hell of it?

Confidence in the truth of something doesn't mean it's true, it means you have confidence that it's true. If you say you have confidence "someone will do something", it doesn't make it true "someone will do something", even though "they will do something" is what you have confidence in. You're playing word games and that's me giving you credit for understanding the meanings o these words/uses.

Do you really want to lodge this response or would you like to retract it?


Let me tell you what belief really is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Belief_Venn_diagram.svg/236px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png

Get to know that diagram. Knowledge is belief of truth. You said yourself that God is unknowable. That would put your belief in the blue area, and you're comments would put a god's reality in the red area. The pinkish area would be absent, as belief and truth would never cross paths. That means your belief is unfounded since it doesn't reside at all in the truth.



Who is talking about increasing possibility? I am merely stating that the possibility exists. You are the one trying to twist my words into saying that it increases the chance. Your need to be correct is causing you to twist something very simple into something more complicated. Let me state this again...


Why do you think a possibility exists?


Because we do not know everything, the possibility of a god exists.

Didn't I just ask you that and didn't you just deny it? You created a possibility based on our knowledge. See my questions below about your keys and the purple unicorn.


Nowhere in that statement does it say "increasing" possibility.

Going from zero to one is increasing a possibility. Since you said possibility exists "because we don't know" then you're implying if we did know a god doesn't exist, there would no longer be a possibility. How does our knowledge change the possibilities?

I think you are equivocating the terms "might be" and "possible".

Might be simply means you don't know. Possible means it can happen if the conditions are right. Otherwise that which is possible might not be possible. That's a contradiction. Since you don't know what right conditions are for the existence of a god, how can you say it's possible? Instead, you should say "it might be possible" meaning you simply don't know.


And yes, if I left my keys in the car and forgot where I left them, would it be completely wrong of me to assume that someone stole the car that the keys were in and made off with the car and parked it in a random place making my keys be in a different place? No it wouldn't because I do not know where my keys are. What you are seeing is the complete difference in thinking styles of a believer and a non-believer. You are stuck with the notion of the keys being forgotten in the exact same place I would have forgotten them, while I focus on what could have happened to the keys while forgotten. You may think that my scenario is laughable, but then again, life was born on this planet due to "random chance".

So your keys couldn't have possibly been anywhere except where you left them, regardless of your knowledge of their location. Do you agree?


The possibility that the keys could be in a different location than I presume to have left them exists because the keys were forgotten. Therefore, the possibility of god is relevant because we do not know all of the answers to the creation of the universe.

I guess you don't agree. Possibilities don't increase based on lack of knowledge.

If it's possible your keys aren't in your car, that means out of so many sets of this event happening, there will be times when your keys are not in your car even if that's where they are. That's a contradiction so it cannot be true.

Let's say you know where you keys are but your wife doesn't. Does that change the possibility of where she might find them?


Why do people buy lottery tickets when the odds are so terrible? Well, because there is a possibility to win it. You would say not to waste your money, yet a winner would laugh in your face.

So you're saying there's at least a very remote chance that the keys in your car are not actually in your car, that you could find them in your sock drawer. Or you're saying that, if 100 billion instances occurred of your keys being in your car and you not knowing it, that the keys would be elsewhere eventually.


Simple minded and ignorant huh? After that poorly thought up list? You appear to be the simple minded one because my spectrum of thought appears to be much broader than yours.
No, you're struggling with simple concepts like belief, possibility and logical fallacies.

All this and you still haven't mentioned which civilization failed due to atheism.

[xellos88330]

noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

No where does it say that belief is acceptance of the truth. Is your reading comprehension really this poor are or you just being dishonest for the hell of it?

Confidence in the truth of something doesn't mean it's true, it means you have confidence that it's true. If you say you have confidence "someone will do something", it doesn't make it true "someone will do something", even though "they will do something" is what you have confidence in. You're playing word games and that's me giving you credit for understanding the meanings o these words/uses.

Do you really want to lodge this response or would you like to retract it?


Let me tell you what belief really is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Belief_Venn_diagram.svg/236px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png

Get to know that diagram. Knowledge is belief of truth. You said yourself that God is unknowable. That would put your belief in the blue area, and you're comments would put a god's reality in the red area. The pinkish area would be absent, as belief and truth would never cross paths. That means your belief is unfounded since it doesn't reside at all in the truth.


Why do you think a possibility exists?

Didn't I just ask you that and didn't you just deny it? You created a possibility based on our knowledge. See my questions below about your keys and the purple unicorn.

Going from zero to one is increasing a possibility. Since you said possibility exists "because we don't know" then you're implying if we did know a god doesn't exist, there would no longer be a possibility. How does our knowledge change the possibilities?

I think you are equivocating the terms "might be" and "possible".

Might be simply means you don't know. Possible means it can happen if the conditions are right. Otherwise that which is possible might not be possible. That's a contradiction. Since you don't know what right conditions are for the existence of a god, how can you say it's possible? Instead, you should say "it might be possible" meaning you simply don't know.

So your keys couldn't have possibly been anywhere except where you left them, regardless of your knowledge of their location. Do you agree?

I guess you don't agree. Possibilities don't increase based on lack of knowledge.

If it's possible your keys aren't in your car, that means out of so many sets of this event happening, there will be times when your keys are not in your car even if that's where they are. That's a contradiction so it cannot be true.

Let's say you know where you keys are but your wife doesn't. Does that change the possibility of where she might find them?

So you're saying there's at least a very remote chance that the keys in your car are not actually in your car, that you could find them in your sock drawer. Or you're saying that, if 100 billion instances occurred of your keys being in your car and you not knowing it, that the keys would be elsewhere eventually.

No, you're struggling with simple concepts like belief, possibility and logical fallacies.

All this and you still haven't mentioned which civilization failed due to atheism.

Confidence in truth. CONFIDENCE IN TRUTH!!!

Let us examine that word confidence shall we?

con·fi·dence


/ˈkänfədəns/


noun

noun: confidence




the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust.
"we had every confidence in the staff"

WOW!!! WHAT A SURPRISE!!! CONFIDENCE IS BELIEF!!!

Let us examine truth then shall we?

truth


/tro͞oTH/


noun

noun: truth

the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More
accuracy, correctness, validity, factuality, authenticity
"he doubted the truth of her statement"
antonyms: dishonesty, falseness
•that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth

"tell me the truth"
synonyms: what actually happened, the case, so; More
the gospel (truth), the honest truth
"it's the truth, I swear"
•fact(s), reality, real life, actuality
"truth is stranger than fiction"
antonyms: lies, fiction
•a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths

"the emergence of scientific truths"

synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More


Wow... such a humdinger huh?

[xellos88330]

I love my history, but I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization that is still successful by modern standards. Atheists are "smart" so one would think that they would be far more advanced than we whose progress was "hindered" by religion.

Ancient atheist civilization... I have only found one, and it is a pygmy tribe and it still uses wooden spears and shit. I don't think that is successful by modern standards. You have the pseudo atheist nations of modern times such as USSR (collapsed in 1991), China (instated freedom of religion in 1997) Sweden (Separated Church and State in 2000, but 66% of their population are members of the Church of Sweden) North Korea (Starving people in a tyrannical dictatorship) and that is all that I have found so far. I will let you know when I find more.

[xellos88330]

By the way, you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying with that diagram.

How much of the truth can be known at any given time? According to that diagram, there is a lot more truth that knowledge doesn't know about. If this were your thoughts and my thoughts on paper, you would on see the pink part. I would see both full intersecting circles regardless of the amount of knowledge I have. I am aware that there is truth that knowledge doesn't know about. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that concept. I am not asking you to believe in god as I do, I am simply wondering why you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that god does exist when we don't even know the full truth of the universe. Saying it is ridiculous is only an excuse for the narrow minded. Columbus sailing across the ocean was supposedly an absurd notion, and he helped open the door to an entirely new world. I am sorry but my position is most definitely not in the blue. It is in the pink because I believe things can exist outside of our knowledge base. You want some precious proof? Look and see how many new species were discovered on the planet in the past year.

[DMC]

Confidence in truth. CONFIDENCE IN TRUTH!!!

Let us examine that word confidence shall we?

con·fi·dence


/ˈkänfədəns/


noun

noun: confidence




the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust.
"we had every confidence in the staff"

WOW!!! WHAT A SURPRISE!!! CONFIDENCE IS BELIEF!!!

Let us examine truth then shall we?

truth


/tro͞oTH/


noun

noun: truth

the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More
accuracy, correctness, validity, factuality, authenticity
"he doubted the truth of her statement"
antonyms: dishonesty, falseness
•that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth

"tell me the truth"
synonyms: what actually happened, the case, so; More
the gospel (truth), the honest truth
"it's the truth, I swear"
•fact(s), reality, real life, actuality
"truth is stranger than fiction"
antonyms: lies, fiction
•a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths

"the emergence of scientific truths"

synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More


Wow... such a humdinger huh?
confidence in the truth or existence of something


You cannot simply remove the context from a definition, this isn't church where you get to break down scripture and have it say what you wish by word fucking it.

You have confidence that you understand the definition of the word "belief' but you display that you don't.

What is the truth of God? You have confidence that the existence of God is real. That doesn't mean it is. It only means you have confidence in "existence" as the truth, even if it's not. Confident people are wrong all the time. False beliefs abound. Are there such as false truths? No.

You need to come back home on this one, you're way the fuck out there in Ken Ham land.

That said, you've ignored challenges to the OP, having given not a single example of a civilization that's failed due to atheistic beliefs.

I see no reason to continue the dialogue. You're either trolling or a fucking retard. Either way you're a retard.

[DMC]

Ancient atheist civilization... I have only found one, and it is a pygmy tribe and it still uses wooden spears and shit. I don't think that is successful by modern standards. You have the pseudo atheist nations of modern times such as USSR (collapsed in 1991), China (instated freedom of religion in 1997) Sweden (Separated Church and State in 2000, but 66% of their population are members of the Church of Sweden) North Korea (Starving people in a tyrannical dictatorship) and that is all that I have found so far. I will let you know when I find more.


By the way, you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying with that diagram.

How much of the truth can be known at any given time? According to that diagram, there is a lot more truth that knowledge doesn't know about. If this were your thoughts and my thoughts on paper, you would on see the pink part. I would see both full intersecting circles regardless of the amount of knowledge I have. I am aware that there is truth that knowledge doesn't know about. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that concept. I am not asking you to believe in god as I do, I am simply wondering why you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that god does exist when we don't even know the full truth of the universe. Saying it is ridiculous is only an excuse for the narrow minded. Columbus sailing across the ocean was supposedly an absurd notion, and he helped open the door to an entirely new world. I am sorry but my position is most definitely not in the blue. It is in the pink because I believe things can exist outside of our knowledge base. You want some precious proof? Look and see how many new species were discovered on the planet in the past year.
Mouse/Cosmored level shit ^

[xellos88330]

confidence in the truth or existence of something


You cannot simply remove the context from a definition, this isn't church where you get to break down scripture and have it say what you wish by word fucking it.

You have confidence that you understand the definition of the word "belief' but you display that you don't.

What is the truth of God? You have confidence that the existence of God is real. That doesn't mean it is. It only means you have confidence in "existence" as the truth, even if it's not. Confident people are wrong all the time. False beliefs abound. Are there such as false truths? No.

You need to come back home on this one, you're way the fuck out there in Ken Ham land.

That said, you've ignored challenges to the OP, having given not a single example of a civilization that's failed due to atheistic beliefs.

I see no reason to continue the dialogue. You're either trolling or a fucking retard. Either way you're a retard.

LMAO!!! Did you fail in english or something? Perhaps you need to learn the definition of the word "or" and it's uses. Many words in the English language have multiple meanings, you MUST pick and choose in your definition of the word. If there were a single word for every single definition, you wouldn't need the different definitions of the word you are using. Once again, you are proving that you cannot fully grasp the entirety of the situation even when throwing the dictionary at me because your mastery of the language and ability to comprehend how a dictionary should be used severely discredit you. Here you are telling me not to pick and choose the meaning of the word and yet you have done the same thing. Total hypocrisy. You posted definition #1 for belief and disregarded it. It says it is an opinion or a conviction right? It is ok, you go back and reread the definition. Also under the definition of truth, you will see that there is also a different context that the word "truth" will take when it becomes a subject in the form of "the truth". This becomes the new definition which I had bolded for you. You can go back and reread those as well.

According to you, I am retarded though. I guess that means you just went full retard. You don't ever go full retard.

[xellos88330]

Mouse/Cosmored level shit ^

Simple logic DMC. That is all it is. I will even explain what I mean using your pretty circles.

I believe that there are possibilities of existence that we have yet to discover. (Blue belief circle statement)
A new species in which we had no prior knowledge to, was discovered in the ocean. (Red truth circle)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible(Pink area)

Now for my statement.

I believe that the existence of god is possible. (Blue Circle belief statement)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible, as proved by the previous test. (Red circle statement)
The existence of god is possible since it resides outside of our knowledge base. (Pink Area statement)

Oh and by the way, you are welcome to refute my findings on atheistic civilization. You seem to not have posted any of your findings on the matter.

[xellos88330]

You're good too...

:toast

[DMC]

Ancient atheist civilization... I have only found one, and it is a pygmy tribe and it still uses wooden spears and shit. I don't think that is successful by modern standards. You have the pseudo atheist nations of modern times such as USSR (collapsed in 1991), China (instated freedom of religion in 1997) Sweden (Separated Church and State in 2000, but 66% of their population are members of the Church of Sweden) North Korea (Starving people in a tyrannical dictatorship) and that is all that I have found so far. I will let you know when I find more.


By the way, you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying with that diagram.

How much of the truth can be known at any given time? According to that diagram, there is a lot more truth that knowledge doesn't know about. If this were your thoughts and my thoughts on paper, you would on see the pink part. I would see both full intersecting circles regardless of the amount of knowledge I have. I am aware that there is truth that knowledge doesn't know about. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that concept. I am not asking you to believe in god as I do, I am simply wondering why you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that god does exist when we don't even know the full truth of the universe. Saying it is ridiculous is only an excuse for the narrow minded. Columbus sailing across the ocean was supposedly an absurd notion, and he helped open the door to an entirely new world. I am sorry but my position is most definitely not in the blue. It is in the pink because I believe things can exist outside of our knowledge base. You want some precious proof? Look and see how many new species were discovered on the planet in the past year.

lol either rabidly stupid or shitty attempt to troll me

[Ignignokt]

So far in this thread, there's been one poster making a great case for distinguishing truth from faith. The other poster, blake, has just been fedora tipping and cuckposting with his dorito stained hands all through the day.

[Ignignokt]

Miserable fat fuck

You know that could backfire, he could call you a miserable fat cuck.

[Blake]

So far in this thread, there's been one poster making a great case for distinguishing truth from faith. The other poster, blake, has just been fedora tipping and cuckposting with his dorito stained hands all through the day.

I bowed out after I realized xello is too stupid and lazy to understand logical fallacies.

But hey now there's one poster in this thread imagining out loud what I'm eating and wearing.

Good talk.

[Blake]

You know that could backfire, he could call you a miserable fat cuck.

then that would just make him a miserable fat lying fuck

[xellos88330]

lol either rabidly stupid or shitty attempt to troll me

I displayed, using your very own diagram, how you misinterpreted what I have been trying to explain to you. I used a TRUTH that something could in fact exist outside of our knowledge base to justify my belief that the existence of god is possible. Now it has been hours and you can only accuse me of trolling you. It is amazing what happens to you atheists when you are presented positive proof that you could potentially be wrong in your assessment. This is another reason why I am inclined to assume that atheism is based on belief. If it wasn't based on belief, you should be very open to the idea that you could be incorrect simply because you cannot possibly know everything with limited knowledge. However, if you claim that yes the possibility of god exists, you are no longer atheist and live within the realm of agnosticism. The truth hurts sometimes.

[xellos88330]

I bowed out after I realized xello is too stupid and lazy to understand logical fallacies.

But hey now there's one poster in this thread imagining out loud what I'm eating and wearing.

Good talk.

This is using DMC's circle diagram.

I believe that there are possibilities of existence that we have yet to discover. (Blue belief circle statement)
A new species in which we had no prior knowledge to, was discovered in the ocean. (Red truth circle)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible(Pink area)

Now for my statement.

I believe that the existence of god is possible. (Blue Circle BELIEF statement)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible, as proved by the previous test. (Red circle TRUTH statement)
The existence of god is possible since it resides outside of our knowledge base. (Pink Area KNOWLEDGE statement)

Bye bye atheism. Hello agnosticism.

[Blake]

This is using DMC's circle diagram.

I believe that there are possibilities of existence that we have yet to discover. (Blue belief circle statement)
A new species in which we had no prior knowledge to, was discovered in the ocean. (Red truth circle)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible(Pink area)

Now for my statement.

I believe that the existence of god is possible. (Blue Circle BELIEF statement)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible, as proved by the previous test. (Red circle TRUTH statement)
The existence of god is possible since it resides outside of our knowledge base. (Pink Area KNOWLEDGE statement)

Bye bye atheism. Hello agnosticism.

Neat. What does that have to do with your original premise

[xellos88330]

Neat. What does that have to do with your original premise

I have already stated it if you care to go back and read it. DMC quoted me a couple of times, and has yet to refute me on it. Perhaps you could?

[Blake]

I have already stated it if you care to go back and read it. DMC quoted me a couple of times, and has yet to refute me on it. Perhaps you could?

I don't really care to.

Is it possible for a civilization ingrained with atheism to succeed? Simple yes or no.

[xellos88330]

I don't really care to.

Is it possible for a civilization ingrained with atheism to succeed? Simple yes or no.

Of course it is possible. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked why there hasn't been one.

[DMC]

This is using DMC's circle diagram.

I believe that there are possibilities of existence that we have yet to discover. (Blue belief circle statement)
A new species in which we had no prior knowledge to, was discovered in the ocean. (Red truth circle)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible(Pink area)

Now for my statement.

I believe that the existence of god is possible. (Blue Circle BELIEF statement)
An existence outside our knowledge base is possible, as proved by the previous test. (Red circle TRUTH statement)
The existence of god is possible since it resides outside of our knowledge base. (Pink Area KNOWLEDGE statement)

Bye bye atheism. Hello agnosticism.
I'll respond to this as sincerely as I can, but no more.

1st, it's not my diagram.

Here's another:

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2447858c6f07c8d324214df8262b348b?convert_to_webp=t rue

Your statement of belief falls at the bottom, which would be unjustified belief. Saying you believe in the truth doesn't move your belief any closer to truth simply because "the truth" is undefined. What truth? Since we cannot simply have truth belief, we have to have a something to be true, a proposition. Your proposition is that of a possibility. This is where you go awry. In order to know possibilities, you have to know limitations and you don't. You hold the flawed position that things you don't understand have greater possibilities than things you do understand. In your mind that could be true, you can imagine them being anything at all. In reality they are what they are, or they simply aren't. So you don't have a belief in a possibility, that's having a belief in a "maybe". How can you form a belief in "maybe"? Aren't you just using "possibility" to say "I don't know"?

You began the thread as theist, now you're claiming to be agnostic. In one thread you've lost your belief in a god. Now you're uncertain, yet you have a belief, you think. How can uncertainty be a belief? You have a notion, don't confuse that with belief.

Up there in that diagram where "truth" sits alone, yes we will undoubtedly learn of things we don't currently know of, based simply on inductive reasoning; we always have. There's nothing inductively obvious about the existence of a supernatural being though. We have no litmus test for supernatural because it's never been encountered in a provable way. If it had, it would become natural instantly, so it's a self defeating concept.

I know you're going to pick a couple words and pretend you had an epiphany, but if you really are this confused about belief and truth, you should probably avoid these discussions, especially if you are too lazy to research things you've been given as reference material.

I couldn't care less what you believe, your OP is bunk since it makes an assertion and does nothing to support it. You made a sloppy assertion without even clarifying what you mean, then challenged others to disprove it, to show you an example of something you concocted in your mind. You made a strawman argument and then dared anyone to defeat it.

You cannot determine the veracity of a claim by how believing it affects government of a multitude of people. What you can do is examine the claim itself and decide if it makes sense, does it hold up against rigorous testing? If so, then it should be believed. If not, then it shouldn't be believed. If you can chose to believe based on suggestion you're probably not mentally stable. Belief is compelled by evidence, not by suggestion, given the weight of the claim is equal to the evidence to support it.

[xellos88330]

So, moving goalposts now. Got it.

[xellos88330]

You are missing the point. I must argue as agnostic because if I argue as a theist, you would give zero credibility to the case simply based on my belief and the concepts within. Arguing from an agnostic point of view allows me to debate closer to your playing field with language you can better understand. I am flexible in my views, and can verify well understand why a person would be atheist or want to be. My problem is the position of non belief an atheist takes and their mistaken belief that they are superior to theists solely based upon what they do not believe.

[xellos88330]

Tell me DMC. Why do you like sports? You have the Spurs which seem to be your favorite team. You must believe in their capability to win to have 42k posts on a website dominant dedicated to the Spurs. The Spurs don't win every game, but does that mean you stop believing in them? My guess is no because your still being here shows that you have faith in them to keep winning even though they may not. So, why are you still here if you don't know know how well the Spurs will play in the future? Life is more than logic and reason. Perhaps it is as simple as you making a choice.

[Blake]

Of course it is possible.

then this thread is pointless. It's really not hard to figure out why ancient people thought that gods existed.

And it shouldn't be surprising that atheism is growing.

[Blake]

... your still being here shows that you have faith in them to keep winning even though they may not.

Terrible assumption

[DMC]

You are missing the point. I must argue as agnostic because if I argue as a theist, you would give zero credibility to the case simply based on my belief and the concepts within. Arguing from an agnostic point of view allows me to debate closer to your playing field with language you can better understand. I am flexible in my views, and can verify well understand why a person would be atheist or want to be. My problem is the position of non belief an atheist takes and their mistaken belief that they are superior to theists solely based upon what they do not believe.
Gather yourself and form a cogent thought. Decide how you want to present it. Read it to yourself, ask yourself if it makes sense. When you've done that I might continue with you. I'm being sincere, even if you're not.

[xellos88330]

Gather yourself and form a cogent thought. Decide how you want to present it. Read it to yourself, ask yourself if it makes sense. When you've done that I might continue with you. I'm being sincere, even if you're not.

What if I told you that virtual particles pop in and out of existence (with no real explanation why) in our physical reality and have the capability to exist permanently in our universe? Some particles are even known to exist and not exist simultaneously until we attempt to measure them. I speak from an agnostic point of view because the acceptance of that possibility is necessary for you to progress with an open mind. Everything I have stated before is justifiable according to laws of physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and pilot wave theory.

I had previously stated that I choose to believe in a transcendent god. Virtual particles transcend our physical reality and others exist and do not exist simultaneously and have the potential to affect our physical universe or reality in accordance with quantum mechanics and pilot wave theory. This also allows gives particles the capability to bypass the laws of thermodynamics. You require proof of transcendence and quantum physics explains and proves that transcending physical reality is justifiable. I also stated that I am looking for truth. The truth is simply just given a name. God. To me, god is the creator of the universe. If god is a tiny particle, then so be it. I owe my existence to that tiny particle.

Stating that I am a theist is actually a SERIOUS mistake on my part (most likely damages my credibility if you had any for me to begin with LOL!!!). I fall further within the realm of a deist. I had no idea what deism was until a pastor explained it to me this morning. I love the ideas of theism though. They help make me feel more human, so I will never ignore them because their effect on me is real.

So where to begin. Hmmmm...

#1 You once stated that atheism has a stance of non belief. Non belief according to the dictionary, states that it is simply a lack of belief. So wouldn't atheism fall in the justification for truth w/o belief category? You cannot claim knowledge if you don't believe it, so therefore is argument from nonbelief actually plausible when applied to this diagram? If so, I would like to see how. I am genuinely curious as to how it is done using an atheistic point of view.

#2 The word justification states that it is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. This seems simple enough right?

#3 In the previous 2 circle examples, the justification was already included. That was the purpose of the two separate examples. The first example I had stated is used as the justification of the second example because it shows that it is reasonable or correct to assume that an existence beyond our knowledge is possible.

[xellos88330]

I love my history, but I have yet to find an ancient atheist civilization that is still successful by modern standards.

This lead me to ask the question. Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization? It is a straightforward question. I have no choice but to create a straw man argument because no atheist is adding their input to answer the question. I don't create it just to create it, I create it from lack of data. Don't just say I am creating a straw man, help set the fucker on fire. Merely stating it, doesn't do anything.

[DMC]

What if I told you that virtual particles pop in and out of existence (with no real explanation why) in our physical reality and have the capability to exist permanently in our universe? Some particles are even known to exist and not exist simultaneously until we attempt to measure them. I speak from an agnostic point of view because the acceptance of that possibility is necessary for you to progress with an open mind. Everything I have stated before is justifiable according to laws of physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and pilot wave theory.

What if I told you particle physics is my profession and they have absolutely nothing to do with theism or atheism?

You cannot speak from an agnostic point if view if you're not agnostic.


I had previously stated that I choose to believe in a transcendent god. Virtual particles transcend our physical reality and others exist and do not exist simultaneously and have the potential to affect our physical universe or reality in accordance with quantum mechanics and pilot wave theory. This also allows gives particles the capability to bypass the laws of thermodynamics. You require proof of transcendence and quantum physics explains and proves that transcending physical reality is justifiable. I also stated that I am looking for truth. The truth is simply just given a name. God. To me, god is the creator of the universe. If god is a tiny particle, then so be it. I owe my existence to that tiny particle.

Nothing we understand transcends our reality. If they are real and we know of them, they aren't transcendent. Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them transcendent.
You cannot tell me about something, describe its properties and such, then say it transcends reality. This is a logical disconnect you seem to struggle with, these incompatible views from one mind.


Stating that I am a theist is actually a SERIOUS mistake on my part (most likely damages my credibility if you had any for me to begin with LOL!!!). I fall further within the realm of a deist. I had no idea what deism was until a pastor explained it to me this morning. I love the ideas of theism though. They help make me feel more human, so I will never ignore them because their effect on me is real.

So you don't understand religious terminology nor do you understand logical fallacies yet you're here with an epiphany regarding the role of atheism over the history of mankind? You're theist, this is certain because you feel strongly that a god exists. If you're deist, you'd think a god once existed and doesn't do anything now. Since you don't know that a god does nothing now, by your own words it's possible that a god does something now, so you then believe it (blue circle).


So where to begin. Hmmmm...

#1 You once stated that atheism has a stance of non belief. Non belief according to the dictionary, states that it is simply a lack of belief. So wouldn't atheism fall in the justification for truth w/o belief category? You cannot claim knowledge if you don't believe it, so therefore is argument from nonbelief actually plausible when applied to this diagram? If so, I would like to see how. I am genuinely curious as to how it is done using an atheistic point of view.

No. You're calling non-belief a belief.The non-belief doesn't enter into a belief diagram.


#2 The word justification states that it is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. This seems simple enough right?

I'd accept that, but you cannot remove words like "showing" and keep the meaning intact, which I feel you'll try to do. Justification doesn't need to be to someone else, it can be to yourself. Justification for belief is something your mind settles on, it's that "compelling" part I mentioned earlier. If I tell you there's 20 dollars across the street on the ground, you might walk over there and look. You'd have justification if I wasn't a known liar (I'm not a known liar). If the money wasn't there you still had justification for looking. If I told you there was a pink flying fairy with a magic wand on an island in the pacific somewhere, you'd not have justification for going through the trouble to search for it. Consider the second example to be the existence of god, and the first to be the acceptance that religion is bunk.


#3 In the previous 2 circle examples, the justification was already included. That was the purpose of the two separate examples. The first example I had stated is used as the justification of the second example because it shows that it is reasonable or correct to assume that an existence beyond our knowledge is possible.
You haven't shown that it's possible however. You only expect to posit that as a priori truth when it's simply not. You have to show that it's possible for something you have no test for, to exist. There's a maybe, but maybe doesn't mean possible. It means you don't know. Not knowing is fine, but you cannot establish what's possible from ignorance of fact. Otherwise ignorance of fact increases possibility, and it simply doesn't.

Is it possible to have a square circle? These are conflicting concepts so it's not possible, anywhere in the reality of the world. In fact you cannot even imagine it. If you didn't understand what a square or a circle was, it wouldn't mean squared circles are possible. It just means you don't know.

Is it possible for a god to exist? We don't know. Since we don't know, there's no reason to create a god just to fill the void until it magically appears and replaces our mental concept of it. Even atheists would believe a god existed if it became apparent. No one has a problem believing the sun exists. You never hear of the possibilities that the sun doesn't exist. We don't know, it could be a mirage.... so does that make it possible that the sun doesn't exist? Not really. Do you struggle with accepting its existence? Can you chose to not believe the sun exists?

[DMC]

This lead me to ask the question. Why doesn't atheism have a long standing successful civilization? It is a straightforward question. I have no choice but to create a straw man argument because no atheist is adding their input to answer the question. I don't create it just to create it, I create it from lack of data. Don't just say I am creating a straw man, help set the fucker on fire. Merely stating it, doesn't do anything.

You misunderstand the term "strawman". It would do you good to learn these things if you're going to enter into forum discussions because you'll encounter them a lot. It will also keep you from making those mistakes in reasoning.

A strawman isn't a hypothetical. It's making a caricature of the actual position someone holds, and trying to attack that instead of their actual position.

Example:

Person A says "The price of gas is too high"

Person B argues "Well, you might not want to pay for the gas you use but it's only fair that we pay for what we take, otherwise we are stealing it"

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. How can that be tied to a civilization's rise or fall unless you think a god is punishing people or that the belief in a god somehow enables cultures to survive? You should make a positive assertion, not challenge people to disprove your negative one.

List the fallen societies that were atheistic.

When you do, I'll show you there weren't atheistic. Even NK isn't atheist. They just don't believe in your god. They believe their leader is a god. Believing in a god, even a living god, is theism.

Atheists aren't a group of people. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, and it often extends to lack of belief in anything supernatural. It develops to dismissal of all the supernatural suggestions and "hocus pocus". Because there's such a stark dichotomy between theism and atheism in society, dialogue develops. Some atheists become militant about it, some never even mention it. Same is true for religion, however with atheism there's no edict on how you should behave, no rules.