What would it take for you to believe in God?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin
First, as I've said before the ultimate point of the book is reason versus faith. When you say he evangelizes atheism, you become one of "the people who read his books and expand his statements far beyond his actual views". Although the quote doesn't fit in entirely - most of you people didn't really read his book (there is only one).

Second, what is this new "right" not to be offended and to not have one's views questioned?

Third, your snide little comment clearly implies you think atheists are just as bad if not worse than religious people. OK, then you won't mind playing a little game: for every instance of a large group of religious people proselytizing I find, you'll reply with something just as bad coming from a large group (feel free to normalize!) of atheists, without confusing secularism for atheism. You game? I mean if you think "Neither side is innocent" you shouldn't have any trouble. Or is this an unfair game because one side is much worse than the other?

His assumption is that reason and faith are inherently opposed to one another. I can't necessarily agree. I can reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, but (like all logic) that's a thin reed, assuming that yesterday predicts tomorrow. It takes faith to bet my stake on it.

Second, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. There is no such right to not be offended. Quite the contrary, a free democracy requires that you be offended as much as possible. That was my point.

Third, proselytizers don't bother me. I find them somewhat amusing in fact. But then that's probably because I don't have a weak mind. I'm not afraid to have my views challenged, nor to challenge someone else's views in turn. In fact, I enjoy it. What I don't enjoy is people who are delusional as to the source and authority of their beliefs, for example, those who think the Bible is infallible (yeah whatever) or those who think science is infallible (even worse) or (worst of all) those who think science supports their religious or anti-religious views (it doesn't).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

I read your post.

Oh?

Can you be more specific?

You said the G-word and his mind shriveled in terror and panic. Tsk. You should know better.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Garth
Sorry for interjecting, but you've falsely characterized atheism. It isn't a belief in something that cannot be proven. Rather, it is a lack of belief in something which is inadequately evidenced.

To be sure, there are many atheists that irrationally believe things that in principle cannot be confirmed, but these are a subset of atheists, not all of them.

But atheism is much more than not believing in God; it is a belief that there is no God: something that cannot be proven.

No.

(Likewise, I could say that Christianity is not believing that there isn't a God, instead of the belief that there is one.)

You would be just as wrong.

You see, you cannot disprove God, therefore you must have faith that he doesn't exist. Isn't that the very reason why many of you throw around "Pastafarianism" and the "FSM"?

No.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

I read your post.

Oh?

Can you be more specific?

You said the G-word and his mind shriveled in terror and panic. Tsk. You should know better.

Doh! :Q

My bad!

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

I read your post.

Oh?

Can you be more specific?

You an aspiring actor? We both know exactly why you posted. Cut out the charades.

 

[Tuktuk]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Garth
Sorry for interjecting, but you've falsely characterized atheism. It isn't a belief in something that cannot be proven. Rather, it is a lack of belief in something which is inadequately evidenced.

To be sure, there are many atheists that irrationally believe things that in principle cannot be confirmed, but these are a subset of atheists, not all of them.

But atheism is much more than not believing in God; it is a belief that there is no God: something that cannot be proven.

No.

(Likewise, I could say that Christianity is not believing that there isn't a God, instead of the belief that there is one.)

You would be just as wrong.

You see, you cannot disprove God, therefore you must have faith that he doesn't exist. Isn't that the very reason why many of you throw around "Pastafarianism" and the "FSM"?

No.

Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Garth
Sorry for interjecting, but you've falsely characterized atheism. It isn't a belief in something that cannot be proven. Rather, it is a lack of belief in something which is inadequately evidenced.

To be sure, there are many atheists that irrationally believe things that in principle cannot be confirmed, but these are a subset of atheists, not all of them.

But atheism is much more than not believing in God; it is a belief that there is no God: something that cannot be proven.

No.

(Likewise, I could say that Christianity is not believing that there isn't a God, instead of the belief that there is one.)

You would be just as wrong.

You see, you cannot disprove God, therefore you must have faith that he doesn't exist. Isn't that the very reason why many of you throw around "Pastafarianism" and the "FSM"?

No.

Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

No, he isn't. Agnosticism is not a theistic position. Trust me on this. It will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

 

[Tuktuk]

Yes, he is. Trust me on this, it will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Yes, he is. Trust me on this, it will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

Ugh. Ok, I will embarrass you when I get home.

I offer you the time until then to educate yourself and return to this thread to confess your error.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

That was my understanding too.

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
?adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

I read your post.

Oh?

Can you be more specific?

You an aspiring actor? We both know exactly why you posted. Cut out the charades.

I'll take that as a "no."

Just another who sees what he wants to see. Nothing more.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

His assumption is that reason and faith are inherently opposed to one another. I can't necessarily agree. I can reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, but (like all logic) that's a thin reed, assuming that yesterday predicts tomorrow. It takes faith to bet my stake on it.

Wrong again Vic. Maybe the fact that you're so willing to believe in fairy tales is because you're completely ignorant about the science which disproves them. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow has nothing to do with a past history of it rising billions and trillions of times in a row. The sun rises because the earth rotates and thus it's view of the sun constantly changes. The earth rotates because that's how it was formed, spinning waves of cosmic dust condensed into a solid mass. It keeps rotating because there's no force acting upon it which would make it stop rotating. Close the biblical fairy tales once in a while and study up on inertia and conservation of momentum. It has nothing to do with what happened yesterday. It has to do with what's happening right now because it would take some counteracting force to stop it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I believe in Jesus.

He mows my lawn every Sunday and his wife cleans my house for me.

Jesus is Spanish for Joshua. Just like Diego is Spanish for James and Pablo for Paul. Joshua goes back to the Hebrew for Yeshua, which (like all Hebrew names has a meaning) means "God is Salvation." The Spanish word for Jesus Christ is Jesucristo.

Thank you for playing too. I hope you're not paying Jesus and his wife under the table.

No, I usually just put the cash right in his hand. We are usually standing outside...there are no tables nearby.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

His assumption is that reason and faith are inherently opposed to one another. I can't necessarily agree. I can reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, but (like all logic) that's a thin reed, assuming that yesterday predicts tomorrow. It takes faith to bet my stake on it.

Wrong again Vic. Maybe the fact that you're so willing to believe in fairy tales is because you're completely ignorant about the science which disproves them. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow has nothing to do with a past history of it rising billions and trillions of times in a row. The sun rises because the earth rotates and thus it's view of the sun constantly changes. The earth rotates because that's how it was formed, spinning waves of cosmic dust condensed into a solid mass. It keeps rotating because there's no force acting upon it which would make it stop rotating. Close the biblical fairy tales once in a while and study up on inertia and conservation of momentum. It has nothing to do with what happened yesterday. It has to do with what's happening right now because it would take some counteracting force to stop it.

Not only did you not actually explain to me how I was wrong, but you have yet told "the class" here exactly what fairy tales that it is that you assume I believe in. On top of that, you took my analogy literally, which only a fool would have done when it was obviously meant to be figurative. Quit being such a fsckin' asshat, eh?

Oh, BTW, if you're so confident in your beliefs, then why don't you kindly prove your first sentence and provide us with links to where science disproves the concept of God? I am extremely interested in reading them. I imagine the author of such would win the Nobel Prize.

If not, then STFU, half-wit. Your betters are talking and you obviously can't keep up.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

His assumption is that reason and faith are inherently opposed to one another. I can't necessarily agree. I can reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, but (like all logic) that's a thin reed, assuming that yesterday predicts tomorrow. It takes faith to bet my stake on it.

Wrong again Vic. Maybe the fact that you're so willing to believe in fairy tales is because you're completely ignorant about the science which disproves them. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow has nothing to do with a past history of it rising billions and trillions of times in a row. The sun rises because the earth rotates and thus it's view of the sun constantly changes. The earth rotates because that's how it was formed, spinning waves of cosmic dust condensed into a solid mass. It keeps rotating because there's no force acting upon it which would make it stop rotating. Close the biblical fairy tales once in a while and study up on inertia and conservation of momentum. It has nothing to do with what happened yesterday. It has to do with what's happening right now because it would take some counteracting force to stop it.

Umm, aren't you forgetting something? The Earth can rotate all it wants, but if the sun burns out, novas, or anything else, it's not going to rise tomorrow. Seeing as it's nearly impossible to determine the exact moment that this would/could happen, you are dependent upon previous events to help you determine what will happen.

Hence, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand how the Earth moves and the sun was still there yesterday.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Alone
Nothing short of Him coming down and saying "hey" and filling my pockets with gold.

I don't even need the gold. I want the son of a bitch to show up and explain the killing, raping, pedophilia, torture and wars that his followers claim were done for him, in his name and with his approval,

qft. And as far as the OP's articles, humans tend to make things up to explain the unknown...

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Even if God did come down from heaven people would still refuse to believe in him. God could raise people from the dead, heal the sick, and conquer death in front of the entire world, and many would still reject salvation because of hardened, prideful hearts.

Quite the contrary. I would LOVE to see Zeus come down from the clouds and appear infront of the world. I'd be laughing my ass off at the expression on all the Christians' faces. LOL, man, that would be great! And let me tell you, me being wrong would never have felt so good.

Zeus (or Deus, same thing, Zeus is the anglicized form of the Greek word that means "God") is the Christian God. The first Christians were Greeks, and they called him Zeus (or Deus, same thing). The word Jesus is derived from Yah-Zeus, which literally meant "Jew God." Latin languages, like Spanish, French, Italian, etc. still call God "Zeus," but in derived forms like Dios, Dieu, Dio, (and even Deus in Portuguese), etc. It's also the etymology of the English word "deity." The English word "God" is derived from Woden, the Norse God. Thanks for playing though.

The Christian God has mutated itself from one form to another for centuries. However, Zeus and the folklore behind him is completely different than modern day Christian belief. So sure, if modern day Christians are happy with Zeus coming down, I'll be happy too. But let me tell you, that won't be what they're expecting. And that is when hilarity will ensue.

Thanks for playing.

Sigh... Zeus means God. Like Allah means God. Or Brahman means God. Or Dios mean God (does dios spelt backwards make perro?). I can understand when sectarian religionists argue that the same thing is 2 different things, but you're not supposed to be one of those are you? You can play it off however you want to sound smartassed but you really just look stupid.
The word is ?e??. It is pronounced as Deus or Theos. Zeus is the Anglicized.

Sigh...The Greek God Zeus has a different rule book to follow than modern day Christianity. When the Greek God shows up instead of the Christian God (of today), Vic you can go ahead and explain to them (Christians) Zeus = their God. I'm sure modern day Christians will see it your way. And then I'll sit back and laugh at both of you.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.

Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?

I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.

Hey Dic, what's up with the name calling?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.

Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?

I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.

Hey Dic, what's up with the name calling?

I don't like being called a racist or even insinuated such.

 

[Tuktuk]

You know this thread was interesting until the 10-year olds chimed in.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.

Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?

I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.

Hey Dic, what's up with the name calling?

I don't like being called a racist or even insinuated such.

He didn't resort to name calling though. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? Isn't that the EXACT thing you criticized me for in the past. Vic, it seems to me you are just a hypocrite and a liar (you've lied about me personally in the past). Not good character traits. And exactly the reason I don't take you seriously.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I said:

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

No, he isn't. Agnosticism is not a theistic position. Trust me on this. It will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

To which you said:

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Yes, he is. Trust me on this, it will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

Note first and foremost the glaring omission in your lame parody. You weren't willing to contradict my statement that agnosticism is not a theistic position. Implicit is your acknowledgment that agnosticism is not a theistic position, despite your earlier insistence that agnosticism is some kind of "middle ground" between theism and atheism.

So let's examine the terms in question: theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

First let's deal with yours and RapidSnail's sophomoric assertion that atheism is the affirmative belief that no god exists. We begin by defining the root: theism. Theism is a belief in the existence of a god. That is simple enough. Atheism, then, because of its construction with the "a-" prefeix must be the negation of theism.

But what is negation, and what can we derive from negation? It should be obvious that negations create dichotomies. Consider "symmetry," and it's negation, "asymmetry." Obviously, geometric shapes are either symmetrical or they are not. There is no "in between" symmetry and asymmetry. The two are dichotomous. Likewise it is with many other dichotomies: chomatic & achromatic, hydrous & anhydrous, sexual & asexual.

So it is with theism. A person is either a theist, or he is not. If he is not a theist, he is an atheist.

So what does this mean? It means that anyone without an affirmative belief in the existence of a God is an atheist. Theists say "I believe God exists." Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

What you and RapidSnail claim in your collective ignorance, however, is that we can derive from "I do not believe that God exists" a new positive affirmation: "I believe that no gods exist." Logically, this is an absurdity. One cannot derive "I believe not-X" from "I do not believe X." Of course, neither you nor RapidSnail knew this because the two of you are morons, but luckily for the both of you I am here to illuminate your idiocy.

Where does agnosticism fit, then? Of course, agnosticism is part of its own dichotomy; the one between gnosticism and agnosticism. This dichotomy deals with knowledge, which we can discern from its root "gnosis." As it relates to a person's theistic position, their position with respect to gnosticism describes his/her confidence about theism or atheism. If a person is an agnostic theist, then we have said that this person believes God exists, but does not feel s/he has true and justified belief, or knowledge.

So we can see that the dichotomies between theism & atheism and gnosticism & agnosticism are orthogonal. Agnostics can be of the theistic or atheistic variety, therefore. Moreover, atheists are not just those that affirmatively believe that no god exists, but rather they are also those that simply do not believe a god exists for lack of justification. These are often called "strong" and "weak" atheists. All you would've had to do is read Wikipedia's page on Atheism and you would've found that to be the case.

Instead, you have obviously chosen not only to wallow in your own ignorance, but to revel arrogantly in it when you submitted your lame parody post in a style reminiscent of schoolyard mockery and jeers. One can hardly fault you, I suppose, since it is evident that your mental capacity would barely exceed that of a grade-schooler anyway. Rather, one can only pity you.

Tuktuk: where the curves of ignorance and arrogance intersect at their respective maxima.

-Garth

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.

Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?

I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.

Hey Dic, what's up with the name calling?

I don't like being called a racist or even insinuated such.

He didn't resort to name calling though. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? Isn't that the EXACT thing you criticized me for in the past. Vic, it seems to me you are just a hypocrite and a liar (you've lied about me personally in the past). Not good character traits. And exactly the reason I don't take you seriously.

The reason you don't take me seriously is because you don't want to understand what I'm trying to say. Your mind is already made up.

As to the rest of your tirade, yes, he did resort to name-calling (IMO) when he equated me to a racist (which was also quite uncalled-for IMO, particularly given his generalizations of certain people earlier in this thread).
As to the rest, get over yourself. Address the topic not your opinions of my character, 'cause I don't care about them and they couldn't be any worse than what I think of you. So if you can't address the topic beyond spouting, "Heh, Beavis... what if it was like... umm... Zeus that came down... like... instead of God... wouldn't that like... heh... piss off the God believers... ?.. heheh... " then don't bother, eh?

 

[Tuktuk]

Garth, you seem to have ignored the fact that the very issue you believe you've resolved is still up for debate among philosophers, theists, and even atheists themselves. Your own link to Wikipedia acknowledges that with its information on positive and negative definitions of atheism. That's nice you took the time to put together one side of the debate, but there is another opposing view that you seem to have ignored. I don't see the point in typing out such a lengthy response as the arguments for my side are widely available, on the Wikipedia article for example and I'm sure many other places on the web.

The fact remains that he was not wrong in his definition. The definition of atheism is still not a black and white matter like you seem to believe it is.

 

[Vic]

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth. That makes your post here more than a bit uncalled-for arrogant in its tone.


And let's be clear about something else: God or gods, it doesn't matter. If Zeus came down to earth like the Second Coming, the Christians wouldn't be pissed. He'd be God. They'd be ecstatic. If there are 10 trillion gods but collectively they create the whole of reality, then they are God. A thing is defined by what it is and what it does, and not by what we choose to label it.