Atheism

[Gripp]

I grew up in the South, so I was force-fed Christianity, and was expected to follow all of the beliefs, but I just can't agree with all the points. I'm an Atheist, but whether or not religion is for me or isn't is beyond my knowledge. I believe one cannot say that they are a member of one religion, and say that is the one for them, while that is the only one they've tried. Religion, in my opinion, was created to make people feel better. And people's religion is influenced heavily by what the religion was in their household as they grew up.

 

[Sovereign]

If you're not making any assumptions about the nature of the universe, then you must believe that higher powers could very easily exist (or not, but still).

There's no basis behind that assumption. The possibility that there's ls no God is FAR more likely, so being a rational individual, that's the one I'll go with.

Prove, for example, that the universe isn't just the nucleus of a cell on a giant purple dragon's tongue.

I can't disprove that, but are you going to start preaching that as dogma? No? Because that's exactly what religious people do.

Forcing the other side of the argument to come up with the evidence to disprove your point while claiming that you do not need to do the same because you're saying it didn't happen is silly.

Uh, why? I'm not asking anyone to worship everything. If anyone is going to make an absurd claim on the realm of science, then they are the ones that should back it up with evidence. Otherwise, you could PROVE anything.

Of course you need to back up your claim, its like anything any scientist does to secure a theory. Begin with a null hypothesis (in an atheists case this is that there is a god - double negative), and attempt to disprove. Doing the experiment in this case (and vice versa) is obviously impossible, so neither null hypothesis is disproven. Thats all we can ever hope for with this debate, inconclusive results.

The reason why you can't disprove the null hypothesis (in the scenario you were referring to) is because it is outlandish, not because it has any merit. As I've said, an infallible hypothesis is a weak one.

 

[Viggy]

There's no basis behind that assumption. The possibility that there's ls no God is FAR more likely, so being a rational individual, that's the one I'll go with.

Sure there is. The universe coming from nothing doesn't make sense to me, personally. The energy had to come from somewhere, perhaps from something else that was dying, and I believe only higher powers (who I would call Odin and his brothers, though their names aren't really important to this argument) could have instigated that transformation into this wonderful universe of ours.

Why is the lack of gods so much more likely then the presence of gods? It seems to me that if you need solid evidence to believe in anything, then you should be an agnostic.

I can't disprove that, but are you going to start preaching that as dogma? No? Because that's exactly what religious people do.

Some religious people...

 

[Denzein]

The possibility that there's ls no God is FAR more likely

Prove that statement. It may not be the God(s) recognised in any of our religions, but its just as likely that there is an omnipotent being as there not being one. They might just not give a damn about us. (gah, phrasing fail)

I can't disprove that, but are you going to start preaching that as dogma? No? Because that's exactly what religious people do.

Of course not, preaching is just merely the crudest form of brainwashing. When I feel the time is right for Purple-Dragonism, I will upload it to your (by that time) digital brain.

Uh, why? I'm not asking anyone to worship everything. If anyone is going to make an absurd claim on the realm of science, then they are the ones that should back it up with evidence. Otherwise, you could PROVE anything.

To a religious person, you are making an absurd claim on their realm of reality, therefore to them you are the one who must come up with evidence.

The reason why you can't disprove the null hypothesis (in the scenario you were referring to) is because it is outlandish, not because it has any merit. As I've said, an infallible hypothesis is a weak one.

Then both sides to this argument are equally weak, as they are both equally infallible null hypotheses. Therefore why bother arguing in the first place? Just decide for yourself and be content.

 

[Venom]

my girlfriends an agnostic. I'm still technically Catholic...though I'm sure there are quite a few Catholics who would tell me I'm not.....I've been considering looking into Neo-Paganism a bit more though........

I can send you what i believe in a PM. :D. Itll be really short, and you can look at most of what SIN has said.

 

[Sovereign]

Your post

To justify God's existence, you have to come up with more and more ludicrous reasoning and more and more silly assumptions. You refute one and religious people will come up with another. However, logic dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The God Hypothesis does not help explain the universe, and is therefore irrelevant. The only logical solution is to cut off God from the equation altogether and go on with our lives without worshipping any deity.

It's clear that even when we disprove God's existence (and we probably will), religion will still exist. Religion requires a leap of faith, which goes against reason and science. This is why it's impossible to argue with religious individuals, because they will always fall back to citing their "gut instinct" as proof.

 

[Viggy]

Just decide for yourself and be content.

This is the part of his post you really need to think about, Sin. You're always in everyone's face with your beliefs, it's tiresome.

 

[Sovereign]

This is the part of his post you really need to think about, Sin. You're always in everyone's face with your beliefs, it's tiresome.

This is the debate forum, isn't it?

 

[Viggy]

This is the debate forum, isn't it?

I didn't mean in this thread, specifically. ;P

 

[Denzein]

However, logic dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

It certainly does. Surely its simpler for the universe to have been created in the blink of an eye by an omnipotent being than a complex and intricate set of domino-ing events? Opinion I know, and I don't even believe it myself, I'm just pointing it out.

Religion requires a leap of faith, which goes against reason and science. This is why it's impossible to argue with religious individuals, because they will always fall back to citing their "gut instinct" as proof.

Atheism requires an acceptance of science, which goes against religion. This is why it's impossible to argue with atheistic individuals, because they will always fall back to citing their peers' (just as completely not-omniscient as the individual in question, and therefore no more qualified to answer) as proof.

See what I'm getting at? There is no arguing to win from either side of this argument because ultimately it's the same argument from each side, just turned on its head.

Aside from these points, we pretty much share the same basic views.

 

[Sovereign]

It certainly does. Surely its simpler for the universe to have been created in the blink of an eye by an omnipotent being than a complex and intricate set of domino-ing events? Opinion I know, and I don't even believe it myself, I'm just pointing it out.

What? Do you have any idea how complex that being would be?

And regardless, I wasn't referring to that. The universe without a God is far simpler, since it doesn't require a bunch of assumptions about the existence of a God, all of which have no bearing on what actually happens inside of it.

Atheism requires an acceptance of science, which goes against religion. This is why it's impossible to argue with atheistic individuals, because they will always fall back to citing their peers' (just as completely not-omniscient as the individual in question, and therefore no more qualified to answer) as proof.

See what I'm getting at? There is no arguing to win from either side of this argument because ultimately it's the same argument from each side, just turned on its head.

Aside from these points, we pretty much share the same basic views.

I agree, but science and reason are far superior to a bunch of superstitious beliefs, which is why I don't particular care if they don't accept our arguments.

 

[Random Hero]

Organized religion and zealotry are the problem with religion. If you want to have some type of faith and live a good life by it, then that's not a bad thing.

EDIT: And for some laughter.

Kyle: "Cartman you know nothing about Christianity."

Cartman: "I know enough to exploit it."

 

[Keanu]

the universe right? God made us all in his image right? We are unlikely to be the only species in the entire universe right? If that is true then the only aliens we will ever meet will infact be humans and will not be aliens. If there are species that are sentient like we are and they make contact with us (or vice versa) then I think thats good enough proof to assume god doesnt exist (or that christianity and so forth are false)

 

[Ping]

The Universe works fine without the God hypothesis. So I fail to see why we should assume he exists.

I never said we should assume God (or a god) exists. I'm simply agnostic just because there's a possibility God may exist. It's probable, but until it's proven to me, I'm not going to put my faith into a higher power. I honestly won't be suprised if God doesn't exist.

 

[Cailst]

the universe right? God made us all in his image right? We are unlikely to be the only species in the entire universe right? If that is true then the only aliens we will ever meet will infact be humans and will not be aliens. If there are species that are sentient like we are and they make contact with us (or vice versa) then I think thats good enough proof to assume god doesnt exist (or that christianity and so forth are false)

There are plenty of other species on the planet which look nothing like us. Also, it's possible that God simply did not make aliens in his image or that his "image" was not referring to his literal image but rather that we are fully sentient beings.

 

[Ser Yorick]

they convert the people they give help to. So it isnt a charity organisation because a real charity organisation doesnt ask something in return.

That's really not how modern "missions trips" work. I've been on several of them, and I've only talked about God once, and it was in direct response to a question that was posed, not me or any of the group members bringing it up. Mostly missions trips are about real charity and trying to be an example to those who need it. There's only preaching involved if someone comes up and asks to be preached to. I remember going on a trip to Toronto and listening as our Christian guide goes and says the church has a lot to learn about love and acceptance from "Boy's Town" (aka the gay district).

 

[Enishi]

I could be guessing wrong, but I believe Keanu was referring to missionaries in Africa

 

[Sovereign]

Christian missionaries have undoubtedly done more harm than good in Africa. Their anti-condom rhetoric has literally condemned million to die of AIDs. The money they give is negligible anyway. African countries get most of their aid from the World Bank or foreign governments. We could easily do without them.

 

[Grath Wyvrin]

Christian missionaries have undoubtedly done more harm than good in Africa. Their anti-condom rhetoric has literally condemned million to die of AIDs. The money they give is negligible anyway. African countries get most of their aid from the World Bank or foreign governments. We could easily do without them.

The all-knowing oracle has spoken, it must be so.

 

[Sovereign]

The all-knowing oracle has spoken, it must be so.

If you think I'm wrong then refute what I've said.