The Manu Doesn't Believe in God Thread

[hater]

I did not say that God is the variable, and I knew I should of types variable(s). The question that remains as long as no one can prove that God does not exists is: How do people act? What universal rights do all people have?

Buddism for example, claims to answer these questions you have. Does that mean we all should follow Buddism because of that?

[DPG21920]

You said that the fact that gifted mind could not disprove the existence of God make him real. I'm telling you that's not how it works. You don't have to prove something doesn't exist, you have to proof it does.

I did not say it makes him real. I said that just because you can make an "idiot" believe does not mean you can make an intelligent person not believe. Who says you have to prove something exists over something that does not? Especially when there is an element of "faith".

[DPG21920]

Buddism for example, claims to answer these questions you have. Does that mean we all should follow Buddism because of that?

Many religions have the same universal truths that coincide. Many different religions influence each other. You can believe and follow what ever you want. That is not the point, the point is that there are many things that humans cannot understand and even many scientists have been astounded with some of the "coincidences" through their scientific studies.

[ElNono]

I did not say that God is the variable, and I knew I should of types variable(s). The question that remains as long as no one can prove that God does not exists is: How do people act? What universal rights do all people have? The scientific method does not disprove God.

Wow, are you serious? You mean those who do not believe in god do not know how to behave? Or that they not share the same universal rights as those who do believe?
I think you need to back up a bit and think of something a little more connected with reality.

[whottt]

oh really?

So in that case, since we can't scientifically disprove that hobbitts, trolls, mermaids and santa claus don't exist. Then we should conclude that they do exist?

^^^^ doesn't know what an atheist is.

[hater]

Many religions have the same universal truths that coincide. Many different religions influence each other. You can believe and follow what ever you want. That is not the point, the point is that there are many things that humans cannot understand and even many scientists have been astounded with some of the "coincidences" through their scientific studies.

you are contradicting yourself.

Atheism could be considered a religion. It is the religion where you do not beleive in anything you cannot prove.

Nobody to this date has disproved atheism either... So if we go by your logic, atheism, should be an "intelligent" option too.

[DPG21920]

Wow, are you serious? You mean those who do not believe in god do not know how to behave? Or that they not share the same universal rights as those who do believe?
I think you need to back up a bit and think of something a little more connected with reality.

There are many people that do not believe that are FANTASTIC people. There are many people who claim they believe and are terrible. Where on earth do you get I said people who do not believe do not know how to act? I have said over and over and over, I DO NOT CARE WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE, I CARE HOW THEY ACT.

[ElNono]

The Christian philosophical framework of the West created an environment where rationalism could grow and flourish. Eventually rationalism became parasitic and killed its host. But now, without any framework of its own to start from, rationalism has no anchor from which to carry out deduction and therefore drifts into nihilism. At the same time, its promise of grand overarching narratives that explain everything has fallen short. The thinkers of the age elucidated these fatal flaws a half-century ago. Now the great minds of science encounter a reality where every answer poses multiple new questions, and knowledge must be coupled with mystery and wonder. The doers of this age came to grips with the fading phantom of perfect knowledge and resolved to act anyway with the limited understanding they have, a leap of faith if you will.

So, things come full circle. The default folk philosophy which was Christian in previous ages is now based upon a rationalism that itself is obsolete. Pascal described this a long time ago. He agreed that God does not reveal himself through objective evidence. He called the atheist intellectually lazy because he refuses to consider whether God might reveal himself through other means.

I'm sure Pascal had it all figured out back in the 1600's... Especially a guy like Einstein that was so intellectually lazy that went on to write the General Theory of Relativity...

[DPG21920]

you are contradicting yourself.

Atheism could be considered a religion. It is the religion where you do not beleive in anything you cannot prove.

Nobody to this date has disproved atheism either... So if we go by your logic, atheism, should be an "intelligent" option too.

How is that a contradiction? You are proving my point. Yes atheism can be considered a religion. But what is your definition of religion? There are intelligent atheist, it is a matter of how you ACT not what you BELIEVE. Goodness, I can see how so many people got so worked up at my other comments if they read into everything with malice such as you do.

[ElNono]

There are many people that do not believe that are FANTASTIC people. There are many people who claim they believe and are terrible. Where on earth do you get I said people who do not believe do not know how to act? I have said over and over and over, I DO NOT CARE WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE, I CARE HOW THEY ACT.

You said it here:

The question that remains as long as no one can prove that God does not exists is: How do people act? What universal rights do all people have?

And I think those questions have been answered in our society a long time ago, and we didn't need to know wether God existed or not to do that.

[DPG21920]

You said it here:

The question that remains as long as no one can prove that God does not exists is: How do people act? What universal rights do all people have?

And I think those questions have been answered in our society a long time ago, and we didn't need to know wether God existed or not to do that.

Where in that quote does it say that atheist do not know how to act? How can you read that? I was making the point that since no one can prove or disprove God, then the only thing that matters are what are the universal rights that everyone has regardless of what you believe or do not believe.

Universal truths do not have a religion. Just like eating or breathing, it is how people act. A tangible measure.

[ElNono]

Where in that quote does it say that atheist do not know how to act? How can you read that? I was making the point that since no one can prove or disprove God, then the only thing that matters are what are the universal rights that everyone has regardless of what you believe or do not believe.

Ok, I can agree with that, my mistake then.

[Shastafarian]

I bet you can't...I bet you the dumbest idiot lacks the ability to conceive of good or evil, right or wrong, heaven or .


The fact that you don't realize that makes you pretty ignorant.

He never said anything about heaven or , right or wrong. He said he could make a very dumb person believe we were created by an invisible being who is omniscient. Talk about ignorance.

[ElNono]

I bet you can't...I bet you the dumbest idiot lacks the ability to conceive of good or evil, right or wrong, heaven or .

You sure don't seem to lack the ability to conceive when you're making an ass of yourself.

PS: 3 ignored posts in a row, I bet he's going to complain like a little .

[hater]

How is that a contradiction? You are proving my point. Yes atheism can be considered a religion. But what is your definition of religion? There are intelligent atheist, it is a matter of how you ACT not what you BELIEVE. Goodness, I can see how so many people got so worked up at my other comments if they read into everything with malice such as you do.

you must not have good short term memory. Let me help you out.

This is what you posted earlier:

No I proved your point wrong. If, just like in America's judicial system, you have something you want to condemn, you must prove beyond on a reasonable doubt that you are correct. You cannot do that. No one has been able to do that. If the smartest people in the world are non-believers, you would think at least one of them would of been able to disprove God's existence, right?

now read the 1st quote and the 2nd quote and tell me if you don't see a contradiction.

[DPG21920]

you must not have good short term memory. Let me help you out.

This is what you posted earlier:



now read the 1st quote and the 2nd quote and tell me if you don't see a contradiction.

No I do not see it if you look at it in context. I was making the point that you said you could "make idiots" believe. Along the lines of that context I said that you cannot make "intelligent" people not believe. If you do not need proof to make an idiot believe, you will need proof to make an intelligent person not believe. So it works both ways.

[hater]

No I do not see it if you look at it in context. I was making the point that you said you could "make idiots" believe. Along the lines of that context I said that you cannot make "intelligent" people not believe. If you do not need proof to make an idiot believe, you will need proof to make an intelligent person not believe. So it works both ways.

say what? how can you equate those 2? they are completely different.

When I was young I beleived in Santa Claus. Now that I'm older I don't. And I did not need somebody to prove to me that Santa Claus didn't exist.

[Extra Stout]

I'm sure Pascal had it all figured out back in the 1600's... Especially a guy like Einstein that was so intellectually lazy that went on to write the General Theory of Relativity...

If you're going to use sarcasm, is it better not to be so woefully ignorant of the subject matter. Einstein was not an atheist; he did not disgaree with the idea that a Creator exists, but rather with the notion that the Creator was a personal God invested in the lives of individual human beings.

It is part of the arrogance of this age that so many people who know nothing of what their forefathers knew nevertheless regard themselves the superiors of those forefathers by virtue of being born later. We don't have near so many rationalists as we do unthinking skeptics who imagine themselves to be clever.

[DPG21920]

say what? how can you equate those 2? they are completely different.

When I was young I beleived in Santa Claus. Now that I'm older I don't. And I did not need somebody to prove to me that Santa Claus didn't exist.

Because how can you equate that an idiot would not need proof to believe?

[ElNono]

If you're going to use sarcasm, is it better not to be so woefully ignorant of the subject matter. Einstein was not an atheist; he did not disgaree with the idea that a Creator exists, but rather with the notion that the Creator was a personal God invested in the lives of individual human beings.

It is part of the arrogance of this age that so many people who know nothing of what their forefathers knew nevertheless regard themselves the superiors of those forefathers by virtue of being born later. We don't have near so many rationalists as we do unthinking skeptics who imagine themselves to be clever.

O RLY?

I never claimed Einstein was an atheist. I claimed Einstein was a self-professed agnostic:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

[Extra Stout]

O RLY?

I never claimed Einstein was an atheist. I claimed Einstein was a self-professed agnostic:

So if you knew he was not an atheist, then why did you bring him up as a rebuttal to Pascal? Perhaps rather than being ignorant, you are just intellectually dishonest?

[hater]

Because how can you equate that an idiot would not need proof to believe?

In order to "equate" you need to compare 2 things. Again, what 2 things I am "equating" according to you?

[PixelPusher]

He called the atheist intellectually lazy because he refuses to consider whether God might reveal himself through other means.

Funny, that reason is exactly why i disdain many religious adherents.

[DPG21920]

In order to "equate" you need to compare 2 things. Again, what 2 things I am "equating" according to you?

Idiots and lack of proof. Let me rephrase the question. What led you to believe that you could convince of "idiots" to believe with out proof?

[tmtcsc]

Sorry about that.


As for the rest of the thread, it's ridiculous that it's exploding into an argument with DPG21920.

As of Manu's response, I know that I have heard him say, "Thank God..." before, so it's weird that he said he doesn't believe.

He's probably said 'God Da*nit' a few times too...especially after he hurt his ankle.