Master Mind Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I'll give you partial credit. That's one (idiotic) example of a link posted stating such. I still don't recall any CDC users actually posting themselves that they 100% guaranteed there was no god(s). The sentiment as far as I recall was and continues to be that it's unprovable to a 100% certainty but that science and logic dictate there is no "need" for god(s) for us or our universe to exist and that it's quite unlikely that they exist. Also that some of us (due to the above reasons) lack any belief in god(s) accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Well, I pointed out about a post under VICanucksfan5551's post making a claim that there's no God. And I'm certain that SS made the claim, otherwise he wouldn't be posting countless articles to support it. Unless he was just trolling me the whole time Both sides cannot make their claim with 100% certainty. We also can't claim a need or no need for God either because of the missing pieces to both sides. Science and logic can make a guess at filling in those holes and therefore not "needing" God, but without complete evidence, you might need God to fill in those gaps so to speak. Same for both sides. We need science to fill in the gaps to the side that believes in a creator. How is it unlikely for a creator to exist? Even if we didn't "need" a creator, that doesn't mean there isn't one. There's lots of things that we don't "need" that exist, like CDC for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 If we took as truth every belief system that has a deity, there's an army of deities ready to punish us for not subjectively believing in them without proof. In order for what you say to be true, you must ignore that other religions exist, and you must completely ignore the type of critical thinking that has resulted in human intelligence evolving. Yeah.. no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I'm not talking about religions here, just about a creator. Care to explain the bolded part there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The discussion made of needing the existence of a deity to fill gaps = religion. That one is simple. And while no side can make their case with 100% certainty, already one side has been debunked as 0% correct, which is the religious side. Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a deity, however, they've got a far better case than religion has for any of the number of deities existing. There is no sense in giving credence to the superstitious side because the tangible attributes they give to their deity has been proven highly flawed, and flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Religion =/= creator. You admit that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a deity. But then how can one who believes in a creator have been debunked as 0% correct if there' s no way to prove it? The fact that a creator is possible already debunks your 0% claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 “A rose by another name…” Yes, hallucination like everything else is a subjective experience. Predictably, everyone uses the more pejorative labels to describe the subjective experience of others that are contrary to one’s own. I can’t give you any “concrete evidence” pro and science can’t give you any against. All I can say is at the quantum level all is conjecture and probability statistics, influenced by mere presence of observers--miracles do occur. People finding their environments wanting and turning to drugs to enter altered states to fill a void or for inspiration is an old tale. Some artists and scientists had success with it, became wealthy, and left the world something to remember them by. But yogis abstain from their use. Detachment from vices and all forms of addiction is a prerequisite for the discipline. Drug use alters brain chemistry and leads to dependence. Reduced intelligence and well-being are often measured. Subsequent highs demand higher doses. All these are complete opposite to what a yoga practitioner experiences. There are no quick pill shortcuts to enlightenment. It takes years, decades to attain a level of mind discipline for a person to experience things he would long before call impossible. When those experiences mirror those of other writers, some living eons ago, he’s got himself what science calls replication or validation of an experiment… subjectively speaking, of course, since there is no other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Thanks for the well-thought out, intelligent reply. I would just like to say that I was playing Devil's Advocate, as I myself am an agnostic apatheist. I don't know whether or not there's a god, but I honestly don't care anymore. People are totally entitled to believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't get intrusive. Like in the US...people are way too caught up in what EVERYONE ELSE believes, as it pertains to faith or spirituality or anything approaching it...when it is actually none of anyone else's business, as the choice is a personal one. I believe somewhat in karma and a natural balance, but I cannot stretch my imagination enough to wrap my brain around any claims made in any religious text that has ever been written. As I have stated before...all religions or faiths claim to be the "one true faith/religion"...and if all of them are making this claim, that means that at least one of them is wrong...and I find it far more likely that ALL of them are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Re-read the last sentence. Attributes religion gives to a deity are not intangible like the mere concept of a creator outside religion. Why I don't argue against the concept of a creator in general is that it isn't possible either way -- it's pointless, and that's why I'm an agnostic -- I just shrug my shoulders as there's no way to know. However, as far as religion is concerned, they flat out give tangible attributes to their deity's existence and characteristics, therefore it can and certainly has been debunked.. thus 0% true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 ...all religions or faiths claim to be the "one true faith/religion"...and if all of them are making this claim, that means that at least one of them is wrong...and I find it far more likely that ALL of them are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-The-Great Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 except there is physical verifiable repeatable evidence that food exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Alternatively, if there were a God, that being would presumably be the same regardless of how the people of this earth understood divinity. People, however, are all different. We understand concepts in a multitude of ways, depending on individual, social, and cultural factors. To say that because different people understand God differently, therefore God must not exist, makes as much sense as saying that because people differ in what sort of cuisine they prefer, there is no such thing as food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Unfortunately, without proof of a creator, the 'reason' you have for life is a sham. So what's better? If the choice is inconvenient truths or reassuring lies, then most people will choose reassuring lies. This is human nature. Most of us don't want to be 'freed of the matrix.' Theists would have the purpose of life being 'to die and be with God.' Atheists would have the purpose of life being 'to die and rot.' However, if you find the purpose in life is 'to learn', then what exactly is wrong with that? Learn. Grow. Change. Overcome. These are things that are the basis of what makes us human. Yet, we're willing to toss that aside because we think we know what happens when we die? Arrogance. Yes, you can learn in a spiritual way as well. But that search should come from within, not dictated by some 'fairy tale' (thanks, ss). We are living in a time of ever-increasing danger due to battles bewteen religions and science. But when the two worlds come together for the collective good, that opens the door to endless possibilities. ie. Learning without prejudice. Meanwhile, some of the best people in our history were agnostic. Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Hawking, Galileo, Tesla, Franklin, Darwin, Shakespeare: Represent the best of what we have to offer. All agnostic. Seems to me that when we put aside our petty differences and instead focus on learning, we are capable of true greatness. That is the path that we should take, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 This is nowhere close to a sound argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Are you sure about that? Newton, apparently was not only a scientist but also a believer. "One reason why Newton's heresy, apocalyptic thought and prediction about the 2060 date became news in February 2003 is because most members of the media and the public had no idea that Newton was anything other than a "scientist". For many, the revelation that Newton was a passionate believer who took biblical prophecy seriously came as something of a shock. It seems that both the media and the general public have a notion of Newton as a "rational" scientist that makes it difficult to absorb the knowledge that Newton was practising both alchemy and prophetic exegesis—studies many see as antithetical to the enterprise of science. The media has perpetuated a myth that science and religion are inherently in conflict (the fact is, sometimes they are; but religion has also often stimulated the development of science). The story about Newton predicting the Apocalypse in 2060 is the sort of thing that one would expect to see on the covers of the tabloids. In this case, however, the story is true. Ironically, the tabloids did not cover the story (perhaps because this story, although counter-intuitive to many people, is authentic)." From: http://www.isaac-new...org/update.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.