The end of religious discussion in GD

[hotflungwok]

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Personal choice, I could just as easily choose the other way.
See above, personal choice is a reason not a rationalization.
[/QUOTE]

What? Do you believe there are little purple penguins jumping up and down on your monitor? See, I don’t believe there are little purple penguins jumping up and down on my monitor because there is no reason for me to believe this. When confronted with a total lack of evidence of something reason should tell you that the thing does not exist, or at the very least that we shoulnd’t think it does until we have a reason to. There are lots and lots of things you don’t believe because you have no evidence. Why do you choose to believe in god, which, evidence wise, is the same as all those other things?

Then tell me, what is a molecule made of? Atoms you say? Then what are the atoms made of? Oh, electrons and protons and such. Then what are the electrons made of? What are these bosons made of? Just tell me what the primary componant of the vibrating strings in M-theory are and I will admit that nothing is irreducably complex other wise everything is irreducably complex.

Ah, the argument from ignorance. ‘I don’t know the answer, so it must be god!’ It doesn’t matter what either of us know, or what humanity might know right now. If you want to declare something irreducably complex, you have to actually give evidence that it so. Seeing as how this has never been done, ever, for anything, I’m going to go ahead and continue thinking that irreducable complexity doesn’t exist.

Simple, my personality exists, completely independant from any other organism other than myself. Can you touch it? Can you see it? Perhaps it is a function of my physical form. If so where is it? The most likely place is in my brain. If my brain were removed, kept fully functioning and placed in a different body would I retain my personality? Would I adapt the new host body’s personality? Would there be a third option of a melding of the two? Perhaps that which is essential to being “Me” is not located in any physical part of my form. Yes, I am alluding to the concept of a soul. Again can you touch it? Can you see it? There is no tangeable evidence for the existance or the non existance of the soul. Again it is a personal choice.

What the hell are you talking about? The new host’s body’s personality? This is just another argument from ignorance. ‘I don’t know anything about the brain, so therefore I have a soul!’ Every single thing in medicine points to the conclusion that we are our brains.

Then what is? The arguement of whose God is better? Rubbish.

Wow, that there is some nice bias. No, the argument of whether or not any god actually exists in the first place. Your opinion or personal choice has no bearing on the issue, either god, any god, exists or it doesn’t.

Hmm… water contains two hydrogens and one oxygen. Really? I think not. I think water is a singular element and should be defined as such. We can list this element on the periodic table in one of the newly emptied spaces created from the removal of elements that cannot be tangabley proven to exist, only reactionary or mathematical. No of course you can’t debate science. Proof is proof. You can debate the implications and uses or even the ethics but not the roofs themselves. Otherwise I may not have any idea how science works.

Nope, you don’t. Not a clue apparently. People don’t think water is made of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom because it’s been proven, but because it’s never been disproven. If you have actual evidence for your ‘water is an element’ theory, then bring it on. The problem is that unless you have evidence, then you’re not actually debating. Science isn’t concerned with proof, or facts. Nothing in science is proven, it just hasn’t been disproven, and everything so far has supported it. Any new evidence sparks debate.

Then what do athiests delcare? God is not necessary? Isn’t the unnecessary arguement the basis of the non-existance arguement? Doesn’t the term athiest mean one who is opposed to thiest? If a thiest is a follower of a God or Gods then would not an athiest be one who is opposed to being a follower of a God or Gods? If a thiest is a believer, wouldn’t an athiest be a non-believer?

Yes, exactly, an athiest is a non-believer. Please note that this does not mean that an athiest beleives something, but an athiest does not believe something. It is an inactive stance, nothing needs to be declared, nothing needs to be believed in. How many times does it have to be said? Athiests do not believe there is no god.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Cool. Now all you have to do is produce a decent argument about why your thoughts are correct.
[/QUOTE]

No I don’t. You can’t do it and neither can I. The argument goes like this…

Voyager: There is no evidence for the existence of God
MsWas: There is nothing BUT evidence for the existence of God.
…Crickets…

You can presume that your view is the baseline, and I can presume that mine is the baseline. It’s simply cock waving of the kind Der Trihs likes to engage in for it really to be controversial to say what I said.

[Ensign_Edison]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
I hope you aren’t pissed at me, I never thought to imply you were a liar.
[/QUOTE]

No, I was being ridiculous. I was just irritable over life stuff and let it spill over here. I shouldn’t have jumped down your throat. Sorry about that.

On topic, obviously some atheists do assert there is no god, it’s just not a necessary condition of atheism.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
I rather like this one instead:

       ** 
        /'\
        |.;
   ,_   ;;|   _,
   \ '-.|'|.-' /
  __'.`_\;/_`.'__
 `._ - =.'. = -_.`
   .-'``/|\``'-.
    ``'` | `'``**

Surely we agree that what really we need is one hot smokin’ Og!
[/QUOTE]

It looks like a Pot leaf with a penis.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Tristan]
For some folks, religion fulfills the same role as psychiatric help. With similarly therapeutic results, in some instances. Whether it’s for the psychological effects of confession, or some mystic guy with a beard in the sky, does it matter what the reasoning is if it allows someone to be happy and at least marginally healthy in dealing with society?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it matters. People who believe delusions ACT on those delusions. They are a danger to themselves and others. And I simply see no reason to believe that any benefits given by religion begin to make up for all the suffering and death caused by it.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Reason for exist and Reason against exists but that’s about it, no evidence either way to be found. My beef is with those on either side of the coin who refuse to accept this. I can’t prove God exists, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist. I can reason and rationalize a belief that God exists, you can reason and rationalize that He doesn’t. Both of these reasons, even though they contradict each other are perfectly valid.
[/quote]
Incorrect. It is the logical burden of the person claiming something exists to provide evidence. And, there’s no evidence that God is even possible - the attributes he’s given tend to violate known physical laws. So there is evidence - against him.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Whereas I see irreducable complexity as being a valid reason you may not.
[/quote]
First, come up with some.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
The point is not whether or not God exists, the point is whether or not a concept of a higher power exists and to what extent does our existance depend upon that concept from creation through evolution to personal birth, death and what lies beyond not only our own short lives, but what lies beyond all that we view as reality.
[/quote]
Easily answered; it doesn’t, or atheists wouldn’t exist. And whether God exists or not IS a point of religious arguments; the believers just want it to be declared off limits, because they have nothing to back up their claims.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
However for now, looking at all of existance, at least all of “known” existance and considering the unknown as well, and declairing that God does not exist is laughable.
[/QUOTE]
Then you are a fool. Is declaring unicorns, or goblins, or dragons imaginary laughable ? Or is it only your own pet fantasy that’s off limits for skepticism ?

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Personal choice, I could just as easily choose the other way.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a stupid reason to believe something about objective reality. Why not choose to believe you can fly next ?

And if you could just as easily choose to believer either way, that an example of the contempt the believers have for reality, facts and logic.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Simple, my personality exists, completely independant from any other organism other than myself. Can you touch it? Can you see it? Perhaps it is a function of my physical form. If so where is it? The most likely place is in my brain. If my brain were removed, kept fully functioning and placed in a different body would I retain my personality? Would I adapt the new host body’s personality? Would there be a third option of a melding of the two? Perhaps that which is essential to being “Me” is not located in any physical part of my form. Yes, I am alluding to the concept of a soul. Again can you touch it? Can you see it? There is no tangeable evidence for the existance or the non existance of the soul. Again it is a personal choice.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the existence of a soul. And yes, I CAN touch your personality, but cracking open your skull and poking your brain is going a bit far to make a point in an argument over the internet.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The difference is, you have no rational reason to believe that, assuming that you actually do. Whereas atheists have every reason to consider religion laughable nonsense. Atheism, after all, is completely consistent with science; there’s no evidence of a God, no evidence one is necessary to explain anything, or even evidence one is possible. As opposed to religion, which has nothing to support it.

You are again pretending that religion has an intellectual value to that of science, and it doesn’t. Religion is worthless by it’s nature; religion is where all the worthless beliefs get put so they can be shielded from mockery by calling them religious.
[/QUOTE]

This isn’t about science at all. Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science is the study of the material world, the spiritual world is out of it’s jurisdiction, at least at this point in the game. My point of view isn’t opposite science. Science belongs to me as much as it belongs to you. You think you get to claim it like it’s your religion, it’s not. You’re the one that puts them into the same category by persisting in the fallacy that there is a competition between religion and science.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
No I don’t. You can’t do it and neither can I. The argument goes like this…

Voyager: There is no evidence for the existence of God
MsWas: There is nothing BUT evidence for the existence of God.
…Crickets…

You can presume that your view is the baseline, and I can presume that mine is the baseline. It’s simply cock waving of the kind Der Trihs likes to engage in for it really to be controversial to say what I said.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s that some people get irritated by the stupidity and arrogance of your claim that “everything is evidence” for God. It’s not; there’s nothing about the universe that indicates a God is even possible. Simply declaring the universe to be proof doesn’t make it proof.

And again, as the person who is claiming something exists, it’s YOUR job to come up with some evidence, not mine to come up with disproof. That’s how we treat most claims; it’s just that the believers want religion to be put in a special category.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
nd_n8, are there any other entities, for which no evidence exists, that you believe exist anyway?
[/QUOTE]

Here is the fallacy. Just because I cannot present evidence and YOU have never seen evidence presented, does not mean that no evidence exists.

[Czarcasm]

[QUOTE=mswas]
No I don’t. You can’t do it and neither can I. The argument goes like this…

Voyager: There is no evidence for the existence of God
MsWas: There is nothing BUT evidence for the existence of God.
…Crickets…
[/QUOTE]

You’ve seemed to have left off the last line-“And that evidence is…?”

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, it’s that some people get irritated by the stupidity and arrogance of your claim that “everything is evidence” for God. It’s not; there’s nothing about the universe that indicates a God is even possible. Simply declaring the universe to be proof doesn’t make it proof.
[/quote]

And some people get irritated by the stupidity and arrogance of your claim that ‘There is no evidence’ for God.

I’m glad you know everything about the universe to be so certain that there is nothing about the universe that indicates a God is even possible.

And again, as the person who is claiming something exists, it’s YOUR job to come up with some evidence, not mine to come up with disproof. That’s how we treat most claims; it’s just that the believers want religion to be put in a special category.

No, it’s not my job at all. I am not trying to convince you that God exists. I don’t care if you believe God exists or not, I want you to stop being an asshole, and maybe learn the critical thinking skills you think you have, but really do not.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You’ve seemed to have left off the last line-“And that evidence is…?”
[/QUOTE]

Everything. It’s a matter of perception. Some people see God in everything they look at. Some people do not. I cannot help but think that God created atheists for a reason.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
This isn’t about science at all. Atheism has nothing to do with science.
[/quote]
Wrong. Science by it’s nature is pro-atheist, since it demands evidence for people’s claims, and since parsimony is one of it’s basic principles. It’s nature opposes religion.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Science is the study of the material world, the spiritual world is out of it’s jurisdiction, at least at this point in the game. My point of view isn’t opposite science. Science belongs to me as much as it belongs to you. You think you get to claim it like it’s your religion, it’s not. You’re the one that puts them into the same category by persisting in the fallacy that there is a competition between religion and science.
[/QUOTE]
Of course there is; religion is hostile to everything but itself. It is especially hostile to science, since science by it’s nature is the enemy of religion.

And yes, your view is the opposite of science.

[Ensign_Edison]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Everything. It’s a matter of perception. Some people see God in everything they look at. Some people do not. I cannot help but think that God created atheists for a reason.
[/QUOTE]

I have the God Feeling. I just reject it. What convinces you that it’s something real as opposed to your brain playing tricks on you?

[Czarcasm]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Here is the fallacy. Just because I cannot present evidence and YOU have never seen evidence presented, does not mean that no evidence exists.
[/QUOTE]
How much time do you spend considering the existence of unicorns? You’ve seen no evidence, and I have no evidence to present, but that doesn’t mean no evidence exists.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Wrong. Science by it’s nature is pro-atheist, since it demands evidence for people’s claims, and since parsimony is one of it’s basic principles. It’s nature opposes religion.
[/quote]

See, you are treating science as a religion. I think Science is theism-neutral, as its purview is limited entirely to the mechanics of the physical world. This is not ME treating science like a religion it is YOU doing so. You think Science is ideologically predisposed to your opinion.

Of course there is; religion is hostile to everything but itself. It is especially hostile to science, since science by it’s nature is the enemy of religion.

Oh good. You’ve made a positive statement. So prove it. Prove that religion is hostile to everything.

And yes, your view is the opposite of science.

So you keep decreeing.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
I have the God Feeling. I just reject it. What convinces you that it’s something real as opposed to your brain playing tricks on you?
[/QUOTE]

What convinces you that what you see with your eyes is real as opposed to your brain playing tricks on you? How do you know that the evidence of your senses is not an elaborate trick played by your brain? How do you know that what you think is rational is not merely internally consistent, and that the external agreement of others outside of you isn’t simply your brain telling you that consensus agrees with your persistent hallucination?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Here is the fallacy. Just because I cannot present evidence and YOU have never seen evidence presented, does not mean that no evidence exists.
[/QUOTE]
But it does mean that we should regard evidence as nonexistent, until someone comes up with some. Especially since there isn’t even evidence that God’s even possible. Really, if we followed your standards we wouldn’t be able to reason at all.

And if someone had some, they’d scream it to the world.

[QUOTE=mswas]
And some people get irritated by the stupidity and arrogance of your claim that ‘There is no evidence’ for God.
[/QUOTE]
Provide some.

[Czarcasm]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Everything. It’s a matter of perception. Some people see God in everything they look at. Some people do not. I cannot help but think that God created atheists for a reason.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for corrupting and making a total travesty of the word “evidence.”

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
How much time do you spend considering the existence of unicorns? You’ve seen no evidence, and I have no evidence to present, but that doesn’t mean no evidence exists.
[/QUOTE]

Unicorns are extinct they were killed in the great Faery purge of 1598.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Thank you for corrupting and making a total travesty of the word “evidence.”
[/QUOTE]

You guys don’t understand the definitions. You insist. “Please within my atheist framework, convince me of the existance of God. But remember that axiomatically God does not exist.” Generally God is considered ‘Beyond Limits’. You are expecting me to prove God’s existance within the limits. If something is beyond the bounds of the natural world, how is it exactly that I am to prove God’s existance to you within the bounds of the natural world? The Natural world is a concept held within God’s mind. (Metaphorically speaking), and you want me to define God based upon the limits of something less than God.