Atheism/Theism thread

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

Choosing to trash away the evidence and replace it with mythology is not deciphering the evidence, is altering it.

[Nullifidian]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

what most people don't realize is the fact that both theist, and atheist have the same evidence. it's their world views that decipher the evidence in different ways.

Difference between the atheist and theist is that atheists lack belief in deities and nothing more than that. Atheists don't all share the same worldview and neither do theists. Don't mix up definitions or add something to a definition that's not part of the word. That's the same as what JJTrixX did with the whole love vs science thing and paints an unfair picture.

[Dorby]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

2. dorby how can you have a good taste in music and still be clinically retarded?

Besides the fact that you're giving me a taste of my own medicine (which I deserve) I think that if we can agree on one thing as important as taste in music, surely we aren't that far off in our mindset. Also, I find constructive criticism the best, in which in this thread alone I don't feel I've demonstrated clinical retardation (assuming that's what you're referring to, because if it's anything else It's been so long that it's really not relevant) so if you care to elaborate further, I'd most likely oblige to an explanation.

[star reaper]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

Difference between the atheist and theist is that atheists lack belief in deities and nothing more than that. Atheists don't all share the same worldview and neither do theists. Don't mix up definitions or add something to a definition that's not part of the word. That's the same as what JJTrixX did with the whole love vs science thing and paints an unfair picture.

Everyone has a view point. It's how you assume things to be true, so the fact that you don't believe there is no GOD is how you perceive the evidence, which all starts with your world view.

[Dorby]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

Everyone has a view point. It's how you assume things to be true, so the fact that you don't believe there is no GOD is how you perceive the evidence, which all starts with your world view.

But you have to understand that we're not denying any truths, for we believe that the fact that you guys believe (or for me anyways) in a higher power is identical in believing in santa claus, which if you were to tell us that santa claus was real and try to defend it, we would simply react in a similar manner.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

I look forward to continuing my one life that I have. But as a religious person who believes in an after life as the ultimate goal you would be the one that has nothing to look forward to except death. Might as well kill yourself.

lol, I've brought this argument up before so many times and I've never gotten an answer.

I wonder how many generations more until this virus is finally the minority. It has got to be dwindling fast, at least in 1st world countries with high tech communications systems.

There's no way to tell if I will be right (in this generation) but I don't think religion will ever go away entirely -- I think "minority," as you put it, will be accurate. The US is just a little behind the curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[Dorby]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

lol, I've brought this argument up before so many times and I've never gotten an answer.



There's no way to tell if I will be right (in this generation) but I don't think religion will ever go away entirely -- I think "minority," as you put it, will be accurate. The US is just a little behind the curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

It's interesting that increased wealth is deemed a correlation of being non-religious, for I've always seen religion as a cash cow for those who can manipulate a weaker mind.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

lol, I've brought this argument up before so many times and I've never gotten an answer.

I asked that question during some art class in high school and the guy I asked was like "people do kill themselves!"

[gnr61]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

ignoring the semantic problem of what star reaper is saying, i'm curious: what evidence (and i'm speaking of concrete, observable, indisputably existing evidence, which on its own is completely divorced from your viewpoint (because, for some inconceivable reason this HAS TO BE SAID lmao) so as to meet your own standard of "we all have the same evidence"), specifically do you find supports the existence of a deity?

[Dorby]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

ignoring the semantic problem of what star reaper is saying, i'm curious: what evidence (and i'm speaking of concrete, observable, indisputably existing evidence, which on its own is completely divorced from your viewpoint so as to meet your own standard of "we all have the same evidence") specifically do you find that supports the existence of a deity?

Placebo effect.

[star reaper]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

But you have to understand that we're not denying any truths, for we believe that the fact that you guys believe (or for me anyways) in a higher power is identical in believing in santa claus, which if you were to tell us that santa claus was real and try to defend it, we would simply react in a similar manner.

So, why do you talk as if it matters? to believe that there is no GOD means there is no meaning. We exist because of an accident. That's all life is, an accident. To feel as if you have to defend your view means you have taken from a view that has meaning.

[gnr61]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

that's pretty unnecessary, dorby. i'm looking for a genuine answer from a theist who considers evidence to be in his belief's favor, and that was just snarky and dismissive and noncontributive

edit: @star reaper man why you gotta post something that absurd right before i get your back god damn. you believe atheists find no "meaning" in life because this is your definition of "meaning": to love god our lord and savior and live according to his will. of COURSE atheists have no sense of meaning if that's the only definition you ascribe to it. some baaaaad equivocating and more circular logic:

--atheists have no sense of meaning in their life.
--how do you know that?
--because they don't believe in a higher power.
--how can you be sure that's the only form of meaning?
--because my higher power says it is.

whether life is a beautiful accident or a beautiful design: your definition of "meaning" is restrictive to design, for absolutely no discernible reason. it feels like you're making big, broad, definitionally vague words like that mean whatever you want them to, specifically constraining their application to arbitrary things you happen to personally think are important.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

Everyone has a view point. It's how you assume things to be true, so the fact that you don't believe there is no GOD is how you perceive the evidence, which all starts with your world view.

"Evidence" is a very important term. In our reality, which is, well, real, evidence is physical. If it's not physical, it's not evidence -- and typically speaking, we can most consistently explain physical evidence with physical frameworks.

So, for example, let's say you pray for a sunny day and get a sunny day. To you, this is "evidence" that God responded to your prayer. You might call this "physical" evidence -- but it's not universally consistent. A better framework exists -- statistics and weather analysis. You can show that every time you pray, the outcome you wish for is uncorrelated. In other words, if you think praying brings about sunny days, it's because you're ignoring all the times prayers did not result in sunny days (confirmation bias).

Same thing goes for any other "evidence for God" you care to invoke -- there exists a better framework to explain it in a consistent, predictive way.

For instance, do you think that how many times you blink in a day has any influence over the temperature at which water boils? You could regress these variables against each other and see that, indeed, blinking has no influence. "But this doesn't prove that it doesn't, in some small way we can never detect!" Sure, but you can say that for anything else with zero correlation. In other words, it is indistinguishable from no influence at all. So we put that hypothesis on hold until we have actual evidence to suggest that we need to re-evaluate the context.

[star reaper]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

ignoring the semantic problem of what star reaper is saying, i'm curious: what evidence (and i'm speaking of concrete, observable, indisputably existing evidence, which on its own is completely divorced from your viewpoint (because, for some inconceivable reason this HAS TO BE SAID lmao) so as to meet your own standard of "we all have the same evidence"), specifically do you find supports the existence of a deity?

We all have the same evidence as in. You see a fossil layer, and say, this layer means that this species died out, and then the layer above that died later on, and so far and so forth. Christian view looks at that and says that a global flood took place and reformed the face of the earth. Killing most all life except those sheltered on the ark. same evidence (Fossils) different conclusions based on world view.

[star reaper]

Re: Atheism/Theism thread

"Evidence" is a very important term. In our reality, which is, well, real, evidence is physical. If it's not physical, it's not evidence -- and typically speaking, we can most consistently explain physical evidence with physical frameworks.

So, for example, let's say you pray for a sunny day and get a sunny day. To you, this is "evidence" that God responded to your prayer. You might call this "physical" evidence -- but it's not universally consistent. A better framework exists -- statistics and weather analysis. You can show that every time you pray, the outcome you wish for is uncorrelated. In other words, if you think praying brings about sunny days, it's because you're ignoring all the times prayers did not result in sunny days (confirmation bias).

Same thing goes for any other "evidence for God" you care to invoke -- there exists a better framework to explain it in a consistent, predictive way.

For instance, do you think that how many times you blink in a day has any influence over the temperature at which water boils? You could regress these variables against each other and see that, indeed, blinking has no influence. "But this doesn't prove that it doesn't, in some small way we can never detect!" Sure, but you can say that for anything else with zero correlation. In other words, it is indistinguishable from no influence at all. So we put that hypothesis on hold until we have actual evidence to suggest that we need to re-evaluate the context.

... This doesn't seem like we're talking about the same thing anymore ...